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 22.0239  Thursday, 22 September 2011

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

     Date:         September 19, 2011 8:42:35 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 19, 2011 9:25:53 PM EDT

     Subject:      RE: Thomas Woodstock 

 

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

     Date:         September 19, 2011 10:38:46 PM EDT

     Subject:      Re: Thomas Woodstock 

 

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

     Date:         September 20, 2011 3:18:07 PM EDT

     Subject:      Re: Thomas Woodstock 

 

 

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

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

Date:         September 19, 2011 8:42:35 PM EDT

Subject:      Re: Thomas Woodstock

 

Ward asks: "Is there any place for other dispute-resolution techniques, such as trials, hearings, arbitrations, votes, or appeals to consensus??

 

I suggest the Trial by Ordeal -- take Dr. Egan's 4-volume opus to the village pond and see if it sinks or floats . . .

 

Bill Lloyd

 

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

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

Date:         September 19, 2011 9:25:53 PM EDT

Subject:      RE: Thomas Woodstock

 

Over the years I've been lukewarm toward Ward Elliott and Robert J. Valenza's project but always found it interesting and possessing great potential and have been pleased they've been able to keep it going (and continually improve their methods).  I'm happy, too, with the opponents it's attracted, for conflict is fun, the more vehement and crazy, the better, I say!  So I hope Elliott and Valenza will keep us informed about what they're up to, as in Elliott's latest post and that they and others will say more about stylometric studies.  What has it told us so far, if anything, about the authorship of the apocryphal plays of Shakespeare's?  How many different authors seem to have written them?  Have any been identified with any kind of reasonable plausibility?

A main interest of mine, too, would be what's been done with the known oeuvres of writers concerning things like changes of style, how closely their works resembable the writers who influenced them, especially starting out.  How about parodists?  Can computers tell Beerbohm as Shaw from Shaw?  As I think about all this, it strikes me that we could use a popular serious treatment of what's going on in this subject, particularly outside Shakespeare studies.  Or is one available?

 

[Editor’s Note: Bob's comments above suggest an idea that I have been playing with for a while: The possibility of having a SHAKSPER Roundtable on Stylometrics. I am interested in hearing what subscribers think about this idea through private e-mail. Even more importantly is there anyone who would be willing to volunteer to moderate this Roundtable or anyone a subscriber might wish to nominate to moderate this discussion? –Hardy]

 

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

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

Date:         September 19, 2011 10:38:46 PM EDT

Subject:      Re: Thomas Woodstock

 

Experience has taught me that this particular forum is not adequate to make my case for Shakespeare's authorship of Richard II, Part One. In recent weeks, I have met and rebutted all manner of objections, misrepresentations, inaccuracies, and more, only to have their perpetrators simply ignore my remarks.

 

Now Elliott and Valenza have weighed in again with another round of sneers, insults, misrepresentations, false claims, etc. There is absolutely no point in my replying piecemeal. As previously noted, I shall prepare an extended response to the so-called panel's findings, together with yet another rebuttal of EV's latest restatement. Hardy Cook has undertaken to publish my comments as an attachment and I'm sure he will.

 

Until then, if readers are interested in what I actually say, together with the evidence I have assembled, they can do so by securing a copy of The Tragedy of Richard II, Part One.

 

Thank you,

Michael Egan

 

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:         September 20, 2011 3:18:07 PM EDT

Subject:      Re: Thomas Woodstock

 

I don't know if I am the only one, but I actually read Larry Weiss's opinion for the unanimous panel.  Ward Elliott, who won, is the latest person to endorse the result of that exercise, but even he has said nothing about the issue which isn't presented in the opinion with detailed discussion of the arguments and authorities.  Michael Egan, who lost, has done nothing more in his posts than repeat the same arguments that Weiss, et al., considered in detail and rejected.

 

Egan promised in an early post to present a lengthy refutation of that opinion.  If he still intends to do so, I would welcome seeing it.  

 

Julia Griffin

 

 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.