The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0224  Wednesday, 7 September 2011

[1] From:         Joseph Egert < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         September 6, 2011 3:09:01 PM EDT

     Subject:      Re: Thomas Woodstock 

[2] From:         Bob Grumman < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         September 6, 2011 5:08:04 PM EDT

     Subject:      Re: Thomas Woodstock 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:         Joseph Egert < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         September 6, 2011 3:09:01 PM EDT

Subject:      Re: Thomas Woodstock

Michael Egan writes:

>I shall of course be preparing an unfortunately long response--cases for authorial attribution perforce rest on the accumulation of considerable detail and often nuanced argument.<

May I ask Michael Egan that his response address Elliott & Valenza's stylometric analysis in detail to include any trenchant critique of their methodology.

Thank you,

Joe Egert

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:         Bob Grumman < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         September 6, 2011 5:08:04 PM EDT

Subject:      Re: Thomas Woodstock

>I provide over 1500 good ones, together with an essay explaining 

>my principles of selection, including the parallel phrases I omit 

>precisely because they are too common, e.g., "Let's hie us home."

This caught my eye: 1500!?!?  I can't believe it possible that any author would quote himself 1500 times in a work of around twenty-thousand words (I'm guessing).  I know that I, as an author, repeat myself, but I generally try not to.

Has anyone done a study of a known play by WS--Twelfth Night, say--and determined how many passages it has in parallel with passages from other known WS plays?  That would be useful to know, not only for use for or against Woodstock as Shakespeare's, but for or against the same uses of parallels by anti-Stratfordians.

--Bob

_______________________________________________________________

SHAKSPER: 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 SHAKSPER Web Site <http://shaksper.net>

DONATION: Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER: 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.