Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: August ::
1 Richard II
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1329  Friday, 12 August 2005

[1]     From:   Jonathan Hope <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 11 Aug 2005 14:00:15 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1321 1 Richard II: auxiliary 'do' evidence -
preliminary report

[2]     From:   Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 11 Aug 2005 14:27:44 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.1321 1 Richard II

[3]     From:   Michael Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 11 Aug 2005 04:19:06 -1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1321 1 Richard II

[4]     From:   Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 11 Aug 2005 16:16:12 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.1321 1 Richard II


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jonathan Hope <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 11 Aug 2005 14:00:15 +0100
Subject: 16.1321 1 Richard II: auxiliary 'do' evidence -
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1321 1 Richard II: auxiliary 'do' evidence -
preliminary report

As promised, here are the initial results from an enjoyable afternoon
spent counting yesterday:

regulated aux 'do' forms     799
unregulated                  160
N=                           959

%regulation=                  83%

*Woodstock* therefore falls within the range of auxiliary 'do'
regulation found in Shakespeare's other dramatic work.

Before any money starts changing hands, bear in mind that this is a
negative rather than a positive test. That is, it could have ruled
Shakespeare out as a plausible candidate for the play if the final
percentage had been above or below his known range.  However, other
writers have ranges of auxiliary 'do' usage that overlap with
Shakespeare's, so this result does not mean that only Shakespeare could
have written the play.

Furthermore, I found some interesting patterns in the distribution of
auxiliary 'do' forms in the text (the early scenes are highly
unregulated compared to later ones - which may point to multiple
authorship, and the frequency of some individual clause types may not
match that expected in Shakespeare).

I need to do some more detailed work to check on these findings (so
please don't quote these figures as if they had been published in a
refereed article), but won't get a chance to until next week.  The only
statistics I am interested in this weekend concern Newcastle United and
their match at Arsenal...

Best wishes to all,
Jonathan Hope
Strathclyde University, Glasgow

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 11 Aug 2005 14:27:44 +0100
Subject: 16.1321 1 Richard II
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.1321 1 Richard II

Dear All,

Just a quick note - I have now finished reading Michael's impressive
list of parallels with 1Rich II and many Shakespearean texts - I do
recommend those interested read his article in entirety as he has put in
considerable work on the play and its connections with canonical
Shakespeare.

I look forward to hearing what Ward Elliott's tests may show for this
and to hearing from Jonathan Hope (bearing in mind cautions over the
accuracy of the Do Auxiliary test for early  texts circa 1590-1594).

Re: Oral formulae - Michael what do you make of the huge number of
repetitions of simple epithets (good, noble,
cousin/cussen/cuss/brother/sweete/ etc); the word 'cussen' occurs 10
times in 1RichII but no where else in Shakespeare or any of the other
100 or so EM texts I checked. Likewise 'cuss'; etc.

The repetition of the spelling 'yor' in 1Rich II is unusual as well - in
all of Shakespeare it occurs 46 times in early Shakespeare Folio History
plays 1HVI, 2HVI, R.II and R.III; but in all of the 50 or so anonymous
texts I checked, plus the works of Marlowe, Greene, Peele, Kyd and the
apocryphal Shakespeare it occurs only in Edmond Ironside (thought by
Sams to be Shakespeare), John of Bordeaux and Sir Thomas More - the
frequency of occurences in the 'non-Shakespearean' texts is however
enormously more - e.g. 387 times in Edmond Ironside and 1Rich11 alone,
214 times in John of Bordeaux, etc. To aid Michael Egan's point here
though - the spelling is noticeably lacking from the texts of S's
contemporaries...

Another odd piece of evidence here is the strange word 'pestifferous'
which occurs nine times in 1Rich II, no where else in the anon /
contemporary canon that I've seen, but once in All's Well. To contrast
that kind of figure, the popularity of "ha's" in Shakespeare Folio (201
times,8times in Quartos) is not mirrored at all in 1RichII but is found
in Dr. Faustus (once) and The Birth of Merlin (twice).

I would like to look into this matter of parallels further to see what
may be made of it. In my work on 1HVI I found extensive parallels with
other non-Shakespeare texts (most notably outlined by H.C. Hart in the
first Arden edition of the play) but I have yet to ascertain how
compelling an argument they make for questions of authorship. Previously
I have not thought much of them...

More soon, thanks to Michael for starting this up - I'm enjoying it already!

All the best,
Marcus

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 11 Aug 2005 04:19:06 -1000
Subject: 16.1321 1 Richard II
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1321 1 Richard II

To Mssrs. Lloyd, Hope, Dahl and Magary:

My webmeister tells me that my web site should be up and running by
tomorrow evening and my publisher that the book will be available
'shortly.' Each and every one of the points you gentlemen raise is
anticipated and fully dealt with, though I must caution Jonathan Hope
that the Oxford Text Archive edition is completely unreliable (and is
reviewed in detail in my book under 'A Short History of the Text' and
'Text and Variorum Notes').

To Bill Lloyd: I'm willing to have the debate settled in the court of
public opinion, starting with the readers of this listserv. If that is
sufficient, are you gentlemen willing to put your money where your
mouths are? Step up to the line. You stand to make one thousand pounds.

--Michael Egan

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 11 Aug 2005 16:16:12 +0100
Subject: 16.1321 1 Richard II
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.1321 1 Richard II

Dear All,

Correction: There are NO usages of the word 'yor' (as in 'your') in
Shakespeare Folio/ Quarto.

There are however 148 instances in Edmond Ironside, 215 in John of
Bordeaux and 239 in 1RichardII.

All the best,
Marcus

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.