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 19.0166  Tuesday, 11 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:	Re: 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.