The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0120 Monday, 6 March 2006
[1] From: Bob Grumman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 3 Mar 2006 18:46:32 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0107 Authentication Article
[2] From: Gerald E. Downs <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 4 Mar 2006 01:24:32 EST
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0097 Authentication Article
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Grumman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 3 Mar 2006 18:46:32 -0500
Subject: 17.0107 Authentication Article
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0107 Authentication Article
>I am, however, puzzled by one of his conclusions found in Chapter 11
>page 364 in which he deals with the Elegy by W.S. Dedication "---Just
>so 'W.S.' affirms that, in performing 'this last duty of a friend to
William
>Peter.
>
>(*1) I am herein but a second to the priviledge of Truth who can warrant
>more in his behalf, than I undertooke to deliver.
>
>The language of the Elegye's dedication, with its denial of ulterior
motives,
>mercenary or sycophantic, echoes Ford's dedications in other respects."
>
>It would appear to my ear that in fact what' W.S.' is saying is- "That
I have
>no intention of telling the Truth"!
No, he's saying that his effort is merely a seconding of what reality,
or the actual facts of the matter, would show. Like a painter saying
his painting was nothing compared to the real thing.
That the poem is a satire seems far-fetched to me.
How many of his dedications did Ford sign, "W.S.," by the way?
--Bob G.
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gerald E. Downs <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 4 Mar 2006 01:24:32 EST
Subject: 17.0097 Authentication Article
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0097 Authentication Article
Bob Grumman noted:
>Kennedy early on opposed the attribution, then was later the first to
>advance Ford as the author--but with very little foundation other than
>his view that Shakespeare could not have written a poem as bad as
>Kennedy thought the Elegy. I believe others were first to argue that
>Ford wrote the elegy with what I'd call scholarly arguments.
This comment raises an issue that should be important to members of the
group. The question of priority is old, vexed, subjective and subject to
bias. If anyone were to "propose" a new opinion on SHK, would he have a
scholarly claim, or must that honor always go to first mention in a
peer-reviewed publication? To my mind the matter depends on two primary
questions. First, the public nature of the Internet ensures that posts
on the group are for all to search and are not private correspondence.
Why should a novel opinion not be recognized? Second, an opinion without
argument loses its force. After all, a correct solution may be offered
for bad reasons. If one hopes his suggestion will be accepted, he should
argue the case.
In respect of "Elegye", Richard Kennedy argued Ford's authorship
(despite Grumman's memory) as any may see by searching the 1996 thread.
Brian Vickers properly credited the direction of his own thinking to
Kennedy, but that is not to say Monsarrat was in any way indebted to
Kennedy. The question remains: Does a peer-reviewed journal trump the
Internet, despite priority in date? The issue must also remain trivial
until someone is credited for an opinion you expressed a while back. If
discussions on this group are worthwhile, that could happen.
It is my guess that in his recent rehabilitation feeler Foster could not
resist the slight to Kennedy and the informal group with which he
participated until his downfall. Another feeling from Priorityville is
that the person first suggesting Ford as Elegye's author was no other
than Foster himself, who made the case in 1989. It is clear in hindsight
that had Foster publicized the stylometric evidence for Ford's
authorship the attribution would have been made then. But was Foster
curious enough to pursue that candidacy?
At any rate, I believe there is some potential for Internet groups as
sources to be cited in scholarly work; but that potential has not been
met for Shakespeare studies. One obvious reason is that an ambitious
character with something to say will reserve his opinion for
publication. And why not?
Gerald E. Downs
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
