2011

Thomas Woodstock

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0233  Wednesday, 14 September 2011

 

[1] From:         Julia Griffin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         September 13, 2011 2:16:38 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: Thomas Woodstock 

 

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

     Date:         September 13, 2011 3:21:43 PM EDT

     Subject:      Re: SHAKSPER: Thomas Woodstock 

 

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

     Date:         September 13, 2011 7:41:20 PM EDT

     Subject:      Woodstock 

 

[4] From:         John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         September 13, 2011 8:42:41 PM EDT

     Subject:      Re: SHK 22.0231 Thomas of Woodstock 

 

[5] From:         Christopher A. Adams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         September 14, 2011 2:29:47 AM EDT

     Subject:      Re: Thomas Woodstock 

 

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

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

Date:         September 13, 2011 2:16:38 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: Thomas Woodstock

 

Given that Larry Weiss and others have produced a long, closely-argued paper about this Woodstock question, is it not time for this discussion to take some account of it, rather than re-stating or re-questioning the same points as if for the first time?

 

Julia

 

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

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

Date:         September 13, 2011 3:21:43 PM EDT

Subject:      Re: SHAKSPER: Thomas Woodstock

 

Thanks for the extra info Michael and Tom. I'm not sure how much progress is being made by suggesting co-writing with others. We have known of several other authors he co-wrote with, right? Pericles being a fine example. 

 

If this is to prove he who must not be named wrote the plays, yikes! 

 

Seduced by the dark side.

 

Yours in the name of Will,

W. S.

 

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

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

Date:         September 13, 2011 7:41:20 PM EDT

Subject:      Woodstock

 

Dear Peter Holland:

 

Commonsense observation tells us that the sun revolves around the earth. But since the earth demonstrably revolves around the sun, clearly there is something wrong with commonsense observation.

 

Michael

 

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

From:         John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         September 13, 2011 8:42:41 PM EDT

Subject:      Re: SHK 22.0231 Thomas of Woodstock

 

Before this all gets out of hand, perhaps I should point that Thomas of Woodstock is generally accepted as having been one of Shakespeare's sources for Richard II. This is mentioned in passing in the new Oxford Shakespeare Richard II (of which more in another post) and is stated most succinctly in Charles R. Forker's Arden3 edition of Richard II (2002):

 

"That Marlowe's Edward II and the anonymous Woodstock served in their different ways as models for Richard II is virtually certain." (p. 116)

 

Both Edward II and Thomas of Woodstock seem to have been in turn influenced by 2 Henry VI.

 

We don't know to which company Thomas of Woodstock" belonged, so we can't really begin to speculate how Shakespeare knew it, but he does seem to have re-written a lot of Queen's Men plays.

 

John Briggs

 

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:         Christopher A. Adams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         September 14, 2011 2:29:47 AM EDT

Subject:      Re: Thomas Woodstock

 

In response to Michael Egan's citation of parallel phrases/passages:

 

I don’t wish to speak on behalf of Brian Vickers, or his research associate Dr. Marcus Dahl, but as someone familiar with their work, I would question the value of the parallel phrases you cite.

 

First, in their methodology BV/MD look for (or, place greatest emphasis on) three-word phrases that are exact matches. So, for instance, the first passage you cite: (‘Faith, my lord, his mind suits with his habit’ and ‘I will believe thou has a mind that suits / With this thy fair and outward character’) contains no actual matching three-word string. The closest would be ‘suits with his’ and ‘suits with this’. Indeed, a quick check of LION for ‘suits NEAR mind’ shows that the idea (though not the phrase), while not terribly common, has parallels in other works.

 

In response to ‘I agree that many of these are fairly ordinary, but there are a lot of them’: Three-word collocations, to be not only valid, but also valuable, must pass the ‘negative results’ test. That is, it is not enough that the same phrase (or a variant of a phrase) appears in two works. To be valid it must appear exclusively in those works (or in other works of the author canon being tested against). While copiousness of examples may point to a possible conclusion, copiousness alone is not valid for demonstrating a conclusion. If, on the other hand, you had 1500 parallel phrases that only appeared in the test text and in the Shakespeare canon, then I would be more inclined to say that the test text is, in fact, part of the Shakespeare canon (in combination with other evidence).   

   

Here’s a random sampling of a few of the phrases/passages you cite. A search for the phrase ‘That’s all one’ in works by authors living in the years 1575-1650 showed 150 hits in 113 dramatic works. The phrase ‘There’s no remedy’ showed 70 hits in 57 works. The phrase ‘(have/hath) taken great pains’ turns up surprisingly few hits in the early 1600s, two in Shakespeare (TN and MV). Though, cf. Fletcher/Rowley? in Maid of the Mill.  The phrase ‘There is no way’ shows 65 hits in 61 works in drama alone. Needless to say, ‘that’s all one’, ‘there’s no remedy’ and ‘there is no way’ are useless phrases for advancing an attribution argument. 

 

If you are going to present an argument based on parallel passages/three-word collocations, only focus on those strings which are exclusive to 1 Richard II and Shakespeare. You may discover that your original 1500 parallels have shrunk.

 

Christopher Adams

 

___________________________________________________________

SHAKSPER: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List

Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

 

Oxford Shakespeare Richard II

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0232  Wednesday, 14 September 2011

 

From:         John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         September 13, 2011 8:54:51 PM EDT

Subject:      Oxford Shakespeare Richard II

 

Just to report that the Oxford Shakespeare Richard II, edited by Anthony B. Dawson and Paul Yachnin, has just hit the streets. The preface announces that this edition is "the last of the Oxford series"—which may well come as a surprise to the General Editor, Stanley Wells, who assured me a few years ago that an edition of Edward III was underway (and Wikipedia archly states that "plans are afoot for the Arden Shakespeare and Oxford Shakespeare series to publish editions.")

 

This edition appears to be a slighter work than Charles R. Forker's Arden3 of 2002 (it is only half the length), and it may well suffer by comparison.

 

John Briggs

 

___________________________________________________________

SHAKSPER: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List

Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

 

Original Pronunciation

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0230  Tuesday, 13 September 2011

 

From:         David Crystal <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:          September 13, 2011 4:24:55 AM EDT

Subject:      Original Pronunciation

 

This is to let colleagues know that a clearing-house site for productions and projects in original pronunciation went live this week. You can find it at http://www.originalpronunciation.com.

 

David Crystal

 

___________________________________________________________

SHAKSPER: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List

Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Thomas Woodstock

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0231  Tuesday, 13 September 2011

 

[1] From:         Peter Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         September 12, 2011 1:17:11 PM EDT

     Subject:      RE: SHAKSPER: Thomas Woodstock 

 

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

     Date:         September 12, 2011 8:10:58 PM EDT

     Subject:      Re: SHAKSPER: Thomas Woodstock

 

 

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

From:         Peter Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         September 12, 2011 1:17:11 PM EDT

Subject:      RE: SHAKSPER: Thomas Woodstock

 

Let me make clear that I am not making any comment here on whether or not Woodstock is written by Shakespeare. But I am concerned about a form of circular argument that Michael Egan uses in his post today. He writes: “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.” The problem is his phrase “since it demonstrably is”: I have a great deal of scepticism about the ways in which stylometricians work, but it is not enough to say that something demonstrably is so and, therefore, the tests will not work, let alone that the sytlometricians’ awareness of the inadequacies of their method is what generates their ‘passionate attack’. Let’s try a different example: Stratfordians argue that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare and the Earl of Oxford didn’t. Imagine a statement that went: “Stratfordians conclude that Hamlet is by Shakespeare. But since it demonstrably isn’t, clearly there is something wrong with their approach.” And, of course, the reverse statement is equally poor argument: “Oxfordians argue that Hamlet is by the Earl of Oxford. But since it demonstrably isn’t…”. Egan’s tests have not been supported as proving his case by many of those who have spent a great deal of time conducting such tests and, while he believes in his own results, he has not yet demonstrated his case convincingly enough to those who have worked through his evidence. Those of us who have not examined the evidence cannot comment on its quality, but we can comment on a clear case of circular reasoning that is not helping Egan to prove his argument.

 

Peter

 

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

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

Date:         September 12, 2011 8:10:58 PM EDT

Subject:      Re: SHAKSPER: Thomas Woodstock

 

Bob Grumman writes:

 

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.

 

Bob misunderstands entirely. 1 Richard II is an early play, 1592-3. When we match its text against the whole of the rest of Shakespeare, including works only recently attributed to him, we find over 1500 credible verbal and phrasal analogues. In other words, a single phrase in 1 Richard II may have five or six repetitions or close usages in five or six Shakespeare plays.

 

Let's take the case of Twelfth Night, since Bob mentions it. I must stress that it's a minor example in my catalogue of verbal and phrasal parallels. Nevertheless Mac Jackson himself establishes a relationship between the two plays when he notes the remarkable fact that in the whole of English drama these two alone label characters ‘sheep-biter’ (1 Richard II, III.iii.236, Twelfth Night, II.v.4-6) and ‘turkey-cock’ (1 Richard II, IV.i.125, Twelfth Night, II.v.31). He believes Anon stole these phrases from Shakespeare. I think they're there because Shakespeare used them on both occasions.

 

This is confirmed by other common usages. The ‘never a merry world since . . . ’ idiom (1 Richard II, III.iii.60), which recurs in 2 Henry VI and Measure for Measure, appears again: ‘ . . . ’Twas never merry world / Since lowly feigning was call’d compliment’ (Twelfth Night, III.i.98-9). Shakespeare evidently liked the expression and often used it.

 

Brian Vickers has established a "three-word-string" test for common authorship. I'd like to know what he makes of the following turns of phrase common to 1 Richard II and Twelfth Night:

 

Faith, my lord, his mind suits with his habit—1 Richard II, I.i.109

I will believe thou hast a mind that suits

With this thy fair and outward character.—Twelfth Night, I.ii.50

 

Why, Richard, will ye be as good as your word—1 Richard II, IV.i.145

I’ll be as good as my word.—Twelfth Night, III.iv.323

 

That’s all one. —1 Richard II, III.iii.206

That’s all one—Twelfth Night, V.i.196 

but that's all one—Twelfth Night, V.i.373 

But that’s all one,—Twelfth Night, V.i. 407

 

We must all venture, neighbors, there’s no remedy.—1 Richard II, III.iii.105

There’s no remedy, sir;—Twelfth Night, III.iv.296 

Come, Sir Andrew, there’s no remedy;— Twelfth Night, III.iv.305

But there’s no remedy;—Twelfth Night, III.iv.333 

 

and in dead of night —1 Richard II, II.i.135

even in the dead of night;—Twelfth Night, I.v.271

 

They tell thee true, sweet love. —1 Richard II, III.i.73

But tell me true...—Twelfth Night, IV.ii.113

I tell thee true.—Twelfth Night, IV.ii.115

 

An excellent device! —1 Richard II, II.ii.196 

Excellent! I smell a device.—Twelfth Night, II.iii.162

 

I’ll see ye shortly there —1 Richard II, II.iii.77

Else would I very shortly see thee there.—Twelfth Night, II.i.46

 

I’ll give thee a tester for thy pains.—1 Richard II, III.ii.138

There’s for thy pains.—Twelfth Night, II.ii.67

 

By my faith, their wisdoms took great pains, I assure ye! —1 Richard II, III.ii.191

I have taken great pains about them. —1 Richard II, IV.iii.66

I have taken great pains to con it—Twelfth Night, I.v.174

Alas, I took great pains to study it,—Twelfth Night, I.v.195

 

There is no way then—1 Richard II, V.i.15

There is no way but this,—Twelfth Night, III.ii.39 

No way but gentleness;—Twelfth Night, III.iv.110

 

Also the following: ‘I fear me’ (1 Richard II, IV.ii.162, Twelfth Night, III.i. 114); ‘the devil himself’ (1 Richard II, 24-5, Twelfth Night, IV.ii.33); ‘Prithee, tell me’ (1 Richard II, II.iii.88), ‘I prithee, tell me’ (Twelfth Night, III.i.138); ‘And these shall better grace’ (1 Richard II, III.i.46), ‘He does it with a better grace’ (Twelfth Night, II.iii.82); ‘He could not have pick’d out such another’ (1 Richard II, III.ii.199), ‘but such another jest’ (Twelfth Night, II.v.185); ‘’Tis most excel­lent, sir, and full of art’ (1 Richard II, III.ii.210), ‘thou most excellent devil of wit’ (Twelfth Night, II.v.206), ‘Most excellent accomplished lady’ (Twelfth Night, III.i. 85); ‘Come, fellow Fleming’ (1 Richard II, III.ii.30), ‘O, fellow, come’ (Twelfth Night, II.iv.42); ‘dwells here hard by’ (1 Richard II, III.iii.51), ‘the count himself here hard by’ (Twelfth Night, I.iii.107), ‘then upon some occa­sion’ (1 Richard II, IV.i.86-7), ‘upon the least occasion’ (Twelfth Night, II.i.41), ‘upon a sad occasion’ (Twelfth Night, III.iv.18); ‘I am glad to see your Grace ad­dicted so’ (1 Richard II, IV.ii.81), ‘being addicted to a melancholy as she is’ (Twelfth Night, II.v.202); ‘We are prevented’ (1 Richard II, V.i.128), ‘But we are prevented’ (Twelfth Night, III. i.82).

 

I agree that many of these are fairly ordinary, but there are a lot of them! When one repeats this exercise with every other known Shakespeare play and finds even greater numbers, it deserves investigation!

 

Note again: My case for Shakespeare does not rest only on evidence of this sort. There is above all the quality of the writing, character analogues, ways of handling scenes and plots, uses of historical sources, comic sensibility, philosophical viewpoint and numerous other coincidences.

 

I submit that this variety of evidence deserves serious and objective examination by people interested in Shakespeare.

 

Michael

 

___________________________________________________________

SHAKSPER: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List

Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

 

CFP Deadline OVSC--September 15th

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0229  Tuesday, 13 September 2011

 

From:         Joseph Sullivan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:          September 12, 2011 8:14:36 PM EDT

Subject:      CFP Deadline OVSC--September 15th

 

The Ohio Valley Shakespeare Conference

 

Call For Papers

 

Shakespeare and Ethics

 

Michigan State University

November 3-5, 2011

 

Extended deadline for abstract submission: September 15, 2011.

 

The planning committee of the Ohio Valley Shakespeare Conference is seeking abstracts and paper proposals that investigate questions of ethics in the work of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. We're thinking of ethics in a broad sense, to include issues of gender, race, class, culture, religion, labor, economics, justice, environmentalism, and nature. Papers might consider issues of ethics as they are reflected upon within a particular play or more broadly within the dramatic and poetic works of Shakespeare and his contemporaries, and may take up questions concerning the role of Shakespeare as a cultural icon and literary figure, his works within the performance tradition or in the English and global literary canons, and in relation to early modern as well as contemporary values.

 

Abstracts are due by September 15, 2011. All inquiries should be directed to: Sandra Logan This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or c/o Department of English / 201 Morrill Hall / Michigan State University / 48824. E-mail abstracts to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. with the subject line OVSC Proposal. Please include contact information, academic affiliation, if any, and status: independent, faculty, grad student, or undergrad.

 

Keynote Speakers:

 

Emily Bartels – Professor of English, Rutgers University. She is the author of Speaking of the Moor: Alcazar to Othello (2008), and Spectacles of Strangeness: Imperialism, Alienation, and Marlowe (1993), and extensive publications on critical race studies in the early modern period, as well as questions of early modern gender and desire. She is currently working on a monograph on Intertextual Shakespeare.

 

Bradin Cormack – Associate Professor of English, University of Chicago. He is the author of A Power to Do Justice: Jurisdiction, English Literature, and the Rise of Common Law, 1509–1625 (2007), and a wide range of publications on law, drama, and poetry in the work of Shakespeare and other early modern authors.

 

OVSC invites graduate and undergraduate students to compete for the M. R. Smith Prize. Select conference proceedings are published in a juried, online journal.

 

http://www.marietta.edu/departments/English/OVSC/index.html

 

___________________________________________________________

SHAKSPER: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List

Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.