Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2008 :: March ::
Shakespeare's Style
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0152  Friday, 7 March 2008

From:		Tom Reedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:		Saturday, 01 Mar 2008 10:31:26 -0600
Subject: 19.0143  Shakespeare's Style
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0143  Shakespeare's Style

Jim Carroll wrote:

 >Most attributionists seem to make the same
 >mistake: they make a list of things that one text has
 >in common with one author, while ignoring the
 >same attributes in other authors.

He then goes on to give us a list of the appearance in Shakespeare of 
the word "countenance" to support his attribution of Titus 1.1 to 
Shakespeare, while ignoring all the other things that Titus has in 
common with Peele's works.

In his *Shakespeare, Co-Author,* (Oxford UP, 2002) Sir Brian Vickers 
includes a list of parallels of language and thought noted by Wilson, 
Hart, and himself, not only to Peele's other works, but also parallels 
of Shakespeare's other works compared to his part of the play; 
calculations from Parrott and Timberlake of feminine endings, which are 
compared to averages from both Shakespeare and Peele's other works; 
examples of classical vocabulary as used in Peele's and Shakespeare's 
works; comparisons of rhetorical figures of Titus and LLL drawn from 
Hill's study of Elizabethan rhetoric; studies by Macdonald Jackson on 
compound adjectives and the un-prefix in Titus that clearly distinguish 
the two authors in the play; Jackson's vocabulary list of rare words, 
which discriminates between the two authors; Tarlinskaja's stress 
profiles, which show a clear difference between the two authors, 
assigning a more archaic rhythmical style to the scenes not by 
Shakespeare; tables of abstract nouns, function words, verbal formulae, 
polysyllabic words, alliterations, vocatives, feminine endings, metrics, 
etc., as well as examples of historical criticism claiming the play was 
only partly by Shakespeare.

While Jim is correct that these are lists, their depth and number argue 
convincingly for Peele's authorship of 1.1, 2.1, 2.2 and 4.1 of Titus.

I would urge anyone interested in this topic to wade through 
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare and find the nine discussion threads 
titled "The Battle of Alcazar." I have posted the entire play for 
comparison with Titus.

Tom Reedy

_______________________________________________________________
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.