Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2011 :: September ::
Thomas Woodstock

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0227  Friday, 9 September 2011

 

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

     Date:          September 7, 2011 7:16:52 PM EDT

     Subject:      Re: Thomas Woodstock 

 

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

     Date:         September 9, 2011 9:19:17 AM EDT

     Subject:      Re: SHAKSPER: Woodstock 

 

 

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

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

Date:          September 7, 2011 7:16:52 PM EDT

Subject:      Re: Thomas Woodstock

 

>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

 

Yes, of course. In the meantime, you might consult The Oxfordian 2009 and 2010 (which I edit) for some very trenchant critiques by Richard Whalen and John Shahan, together with responses by Elliott and Valenza.

 

Bob Grumman quotes me:

 

>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."

 

and writes:

 

>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.

 

I didn't say he quotes himself, just that there are over 1500 verbal and phrasal parallels. 1 Richard II is an early work and I compare it systematically with the rest of Shakespeare. Please consult my book and see what you think.

 

Michael

 

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

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

Date:         September 9, 2011 9:19:17 AM EDT

Subject:      Re: SHAKSPER: Woodstock

 

Several things I want to comment upon with the Woodstock (non) controversy. 

 

Michael E. still has to prove his thesis. Several experts steeped in the field of attribution have rejected it. Most scholars (I assume) will examine the encapsulated evidence, and go along with the accepted case. Michael finds the sheer number of parallels between these phrases and words convincing enough. 

 

And the fact that other parts of the play sound like Shakespeare in metre, measure, balance, and development of argument is persuasive. Those two bits are quality conceit extensions. At least, I would have guessed it was Shakespeare if it had appeared on the Golden Ear Test. (did it? did I?) 

 

Is there not an extra possibility that Shakespeare co-wrote those bits in Richard 1st? 

 

And aren't there electronic versions of concordances yet? That could with the correct piece of code search for similarities in phrase and word, which they already do in book form for word only, and present the results for all the plays? Or are we not there yet? Or am I being obtuse?  As dead as a doornail?

 

Also wouldn't we need to make phrase concordances for all the extant plays of the EME, so we can be sure who conspired with, copied from, or imitated whom?

 

It's time to find an e-copy of Richard 1st so I can judge for myself if I am englished enough

 

BTW where can I find the MacJackson/A.C. Partridge information? 

 

Just things I find myself asking as I follow the thread.

 

Yours,

Will

 

_______________________________________________________________

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.

 

 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.