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 22.0228  Monday, 12 September 2011

 

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

     Date:          September 9, 2011 7:34:24 PM EDT

     Subject:      Re: Thomas Woodstock 

 

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

     Date:          September 10, 2011 10:56:20 AM EDT

     Subject:      1 Richard II 

 

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

     Date:         September 10, 2011 4:32:55 PM EDT

     Subject:      Re: Thomas Woodstock 

 

 

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

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

Date:          September 9, 2011 7:34:24 PM EDT

Subject:      Re: Thomas Woodstock

 

Michael Egan writes that he is only concerned with "verbal and phrasal parallels" between Shakespearean works and Woodstock, rather than shared self-quotations, as I termed them.  Fine. I now wonder if it is likely that an author of a work of twenty-thousand words (I'm guessing) included in his works 1500 verbal and phrasal parallels to works he had previously written.

 

I remain interested in finding out if a play like Twelfth Night has been shown to have so many verbal and phrasal parallels with others of his works.  I'm afraid my previous Internet exposure to Prof. Egan's parallels plus my faith in the knowledge and integrity of Heminges and Condell, and—most especially—my being up to my nose in too much else, makes it unlikely that I will be consulting his book.  --Bob

 

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

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

Date:          September 10, 2011 10:56:20 AM EDT

Subject:      1 Richard II

 

William Sutton writes:

 

>Michael E. still has to prove his thesis.

 

I have attempted to do so in my four-volume study, The Tragedy of Richard II, Part One: A Newly Authenticated Play by William Shakespeare, Edited, Introduced and with Variorum Notes (Edwin Mellen 2006). I know it's a long and sometimes tedious read but that's what making such a case requires.

 

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.

 

This is largely true, but as I have noted they have done so without reading what I actually say, or by falsely paraphrasing my arguments. The notorious case is Gabriel Egan, as I recently demonstrated right here. Mac Jackson and I have a legitimate debate going and interested readers may follow it in my book and in the pages of The Oxfordian.

 

Elliott and Valenza have their own methods of stylometric attribution. They conclude that 1 Richard II is not by Shakespeare. But since it demonstrably is, clearly there is something wrong with their approach. This implication is what lies behind the passionate attack on my scrupulously documented case—stylometrics is, in fact, unreliable.

 

>Michael finds the sheer number of parallels between these 

>phrases and words convincing enough. 

 

Not true. The sheer number of verbal and phrasal parallels is just one piece of the evidence. In an earlier email I noted some of the other categories, e.g., scenic design, characters, and characterisation, and historical/philosophical perspectives. What is especially striking is that we find unmistakable echoes of 1 Richard II not only in every one of The Collected Works, but also in the Sir Thomas More fragment, the "Shakespeare" scenes of The Two Noble Kinsmen, the Sonnets, Venus and Adonis, The Rape of Lucrece and overwhelmingly in Edward III. In other words, we find echoes in Shakespeare works not attributed to him until very recently; what's more these confirm the conclusions of the style critics.

 

>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?) 

 

Exactly. And there is more. I encourage readers to examine the rich comedy in the Dunstable scene (III.iii), as good as anything in Shakespeare and filled with recognisably Shakespearean characters such as Simon Ignorance, blood brother to Dogberry, Elbow, Dull, etc. The Spruce Courtier in III.ii is plainly Osric in embryo, and we may see the outlines of Falstaff in the king's fat, manipulative minion, Sir Robert Tresilian. It goes on and on.

 

>Is there not an extra possibility that Shakespeare co-wrote those 

>bits in Richard 1st? 

 

We make progress! Now at least his co-authorship is being proposed!

  

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

>if I am englished enough

 

My edition of 1 Richard II is available for free at the Play Shakespeare web site, though you have to register to access it. Please avoid other on-line versions, as they are unreliable and corrupt, as I demonstrate in my "A Short History of the Text" (Vol III).

 

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

 

In my book and in recent issues of The Oxfordian. Partridge's study is generally available in university libraries.

 

Thanks for your patience and attention.

 

Michael 



 

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:         September 10, 2011 4:32:55 PM EDT

Subject:      Re: Thomas Woodstock

 

William Sutton wrote:

 

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

>if I am englished enough

 

See http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/browse_frm/thread/6827332eea2b2b9d/46ca7a0ecf23d99a for a transcription I did for a newsgroup discussion. See http://american-shakespeare.com/?p=234 for a script with a new ending.

 

_____________________________________________________________

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.