![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 2005: Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@shaksper.net) Date: 11/30/05
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1974 Wednesday, 30 November 2005 [1] From: Ward Elliott <WElliott@claremontmckenna.edu> Date: Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 19:35:48 -0800 Subj: RE: SHK 16.1964 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my... [2] From: Michael Egan <drmichaelegan@hawaii.rr.com> Date: Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 19:59:29 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 16.1964 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my... [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ward Elliott <WElliott@claremontmckenna.edu> Date: Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 19:35:48 -0800 Subject: 16.1964 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my... Comment: RE: SHK 16.1964 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my... My sense is that our Shakespeare ranges are pretty well validated back to 1590, since you can find two early plays, 2H6 and R3, that fit them pretty closely and no gold-standard Shakespeare play of any date that doesn't. I can't claim to have validated our tests earlier than 1589, since we have no known Shakespeare that early to compare, nor for co-authored plays. But I do know that other authors by the same tests look much the same stylometrically at 60 as they did at 18, and I'm skeptical that "punctuated development" does much to show that some other writer who tests on a different galaxy from Shakespeare at the other writer's age 20 or 30 or 43 could have morphed into Shakespeare at 29, just as I would be of someone who argued that "punctuated development" could morph Jerome Kern into Paul McCartney. We discuss this point at considerable length in the Oxford part of "Oxford by the Numbers" and have heard it reiterated many times since by Oxfordians, but SHAKSPER does not seem to me a proper place to rehash these arguments. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Egan <drmichaelegan@hawaii.rr.com> Date: Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 19:59:29 -1000 Subject: 16.1964 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my... Comment: Re: SHK 16.1964 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my... Ward Elliott is obviously looking for a fight. I'm not interested. If he wants to discuss the authorship of 1 Richard II/Woodstock, it must be in an appropriately scholarly manner. --Michael Egan _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook, editor@shaksper.net The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.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.
|
|
|||||