SHAKSPER 2005: Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@shaksper.net)
Date: 12/06/05 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.2011  Tuesday, 6 December 2005

[1] 	From: 	Marcus Dahl <marcus@blackheartstudios.co.uk>
	Date: 	Monday, 5 Dec 2005 17:39:25 -0000 (GMT)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1999 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...

[2] 	From: 	Donald Bloom <dbloom@asms.net>
	Date: 	Monday, 5 Dec 2005 16:17:26 -0600
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 16.1999 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Marcus Dahl <marcus@blackheartstudios.co.uk>
Date: 		Monday, 5 Dec 2005 17:39:25 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: 16.1999 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1999 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...

Hi All

Just for the record:

(1) I wrote my PhD on the authorship of 1HVI.

(2) I used a 257 text database of early modern plays (including all 
known authorship contenders) in a 87 test linguistic-statistical 
analysis of the available data. I did this over scenes and acts for all 
HVI plays including Folio and Quarto editions. I also included a survey 
of other historical indicators as to the authorship of the play.

(3) The evidence was inconclusive at best. The evidence for Nashe is 
quite simply inadequate. Linguistic analysis consistently puts 1HVI 
slightly to the outside of the Folio canon but well within the Quarto 
canon. 2HVI and 3HVI are consistently well within both. The evidence 
from Ward Elliott's tests probably confirm that the HVI plays lie to the 
outside of the main Shakespeare canon. However Ward only compares them 
to his 'core-canon' which means that his error margin would not 
necessarily include a wider measure of Shakespearean authorship; also on 
his previous analysis he only compared whole plays. I would like to see 
him do an act by act, scene by scene analysis in comparison with Nashe, 
Greene, Marlowe and Peele.  Obviously the problem with Nashe is that he 
only leaves us one 'pageant play' which is written in a highly different 
theatrical style to that of 1HVI etc.

(4) More work needs to be done on both the date and quality of text (good
/bad /oral etc) of the HVI plays.

(5) My recent analysis of the complete first Folio canon and the 
Shakespeare Apocrypha using the 100 most frequent words of the First 
Folio in comparison with the apocryphal texts indicates that plays such 
as Edward III are in fact overall more 'un-Shakespearean' than the three 
HVI Folio plays - which do not appear statistically deviant from the 
wider Folio canon by this measure.

(6) The same analysis (bad news for Michael Egan) shows that of all the 
apocryphal plays 'Thomas of Woodstock' has the least Shakespearean 
vocabulary by reference to the First Folio 100 most frequent words. Too 
many variants, not enough similarities. The statistical data is 
overwhelming clear in a way in which I'm afraid it is not for 1HVI etc. 
As I have mentioned previously on this list - Woodstock's use of 
extremely rare un-Shakespearean words such as 'YOR' (which only occurs 
to my knowledge elsewhere in the corrupt texts of Edmond Ironside and 
John of Bordeaux) does not help matters.

(7) Interestingly the play which consistently seems quite 
un-Shakespearean in my analyses is Merry Wives of Windsor - both in 
vocabulary and text - so this might be worth having a closer look at in 
the future.

(8) I'm sure I've already sent a copy of my findings and method etc to 
Ward Elliott but if he would like to have a copy I would be very happy 
to send it again. Likewise Michael Egan etc.

(9) In general terms the subject of early Shakespearean authorship is by 
no means closed. I know that Professor Mac Jackson is currently looking 
at 1HVI with a view to demonstrating that it IS quite un-Shakespearean 
and it would be interesting to get Professor Gary Taylor back to have a 
look at his analysis in the light of some of the new statistical data on 
the play gathered in recent studies.

(10) In regard to Thomas of Woodstock - I also highly recommend Mac 
Jackson's article in Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England, 14, 2002.

I hope to publish more of my findings on 1HVI very soon. In the meantime 
I would be more than happy to email anyone interested my condensed 
conclusions and stats etc.

All the best,
Marcus 'have a go' Dahl

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Donald Bloom <dbloom@asms.net>
Date: 		Monday, 5 Dec 2005 16:17:26 -0600
Subject: 16.1999 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...
Comment: 	RE: SHK 16.1999 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...

William Davis writes:

 >"I think discussing the possibility that Shakespeare experienced a
 >significant change in his style during the early London years is
 >pertinent."

I'm not sure just what these early London years are? What firm dates do 
we have for them?

Cheers,
don

_______________________________________________________________
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.


about SHAKSPER | current postings | submitted papers | browse SHAKSPER | search SHAKSPER
  
Copyright © 2004, Hardy M. Cook, design by Eric Luhrs. All rights reserved.