• Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Living Characters"
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "BBC TV Shakespeare Collection"
• Next in thread: Hardy M. Cook: "Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my..."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.2018  Wednesday, 7 December 2005

[1] 	From: 	Larry Weiss <larry@lweiss.net>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 06 Dec 2005 14:39:10 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.2011 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...

[2] 	From: 	John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 6 Dec 2005 21:59:53 -0000
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.2011 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Larry Weiss <larry@lweiss.net>
Date: 		Tuesday, 06 Dec 2005 14:39:10 -0500
Subject: 16.2011 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.2011 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...

Marcus Dahl writes:

 >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.

Did you use any other stylometric test?  This one seems too limited by 
itself.

Also, did you test segments of 1HVI separately?  I would be interested 
in whether certain portions, such as the Temple Garden scene, the 
Margaret-Suffolk scenes and the Countess scenes, are more stylistically 
Shakespearean than others.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com>
Date: 		Tuesday, 6 Dec 2005 21:59:53 -0000
Subject: 16.2011 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.2011 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...

Marcus Dahl wrote:

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

It's too late now, of course, but I would have suggested that you 
included R3 in that analysis, especially as it may well have been 
written *before* 1HVI.

 >(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.

There are several possible reasons: the Quarto is agreed to be a 'bad 
quarto', although not necessarily of the Folio text; the Folio text is a 
late one (and thus possibly incorporating later material), in a Ralph 
Crane transcript and expurgated; inconsistencies in the Folio text 
suggest that the text may be a composite one, perhaps 'contaminated' by 
the Quarto text; and Giorgio Melchiori suggested that Shakespeare wrote 
the play in 1600 incorporating a Garter entertainment of April 1597, 
where the Falstaff character had originally been the one of 1HVI, not 
that of the HIV plays.

John Briggs

_______________________________________________________________
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.

• Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Living Characters"
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "BBC TV Shakespeare Collection"
• Next in thread: Hardy M. Cook: "Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my..."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]