• Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Concessions"
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "What ho, Horatio"
• Next in thread: Hardy M. Cook: "Arden of Feversham"
• Maybe reply: Hardy M. Cook: "Arden of Feversham"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0250  Wednesday, 20 May 2009

[1] From:   David Kathman <djk1@ix.netcom.com>
     Date:   Monday, 18 May 2009 14:54:39 -0500
     Subj:   Re: SHK 20.0242 Gary Taylor's Cardenio

[2] From:   William Godshalk <godshawl@ucmail.uc.edu>
     Date:   Monday, 18 May 2009 17:36:26 -0400
     Subj:   Arden of Feversham

[3] From:   William Godshalk <godshawl@ucmail.uc.edu>
     Date:   Monday, 18 May 2009 18:17:52 -0400
     Subj:   Arden of Feversham


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       David Kathman <djk1@ix.netcom.com>
Date:       Monday, 18 May 2009 14:54:39 -0500
Subject: 20.0242 Gary Taylor's Cardenio
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0242 Gary Taylor's Cardenio

Bill Godshalk wrote:

 >Larry Weiss notes Mac Jackson's attribution of "portions of Arden of
 >Feversham to Shakespeare." Actually Mac repudiated that attribution
 >some while ago on this very forum.

When did he do that? The most recent relevant post by Mac that I can 
find is this one from 2004, in which he defends his attribution of part 
of Arden to Shakespeare:

http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2004/0785.html

Since then, he has reinforced his arguments at some length in 
"Shakespeare and the Quarrel Scene in Arden of Faversham", Shakespeare 
Quarterly 57.3 (2006), 249-293.

Dave Kathman
djk1@ix.netcom.com

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       William Godshalk <godshawl@ucmail.uc.edu>
Date:       Monday, 18 May 2009 17:36:26 -0400
Subject:    Arden of Feversham

My reply to Larry Weiss is almost totally incorrect. Mac did no such 
thing on this forum. My memory was wrong.

Mac sends me this offline:

"You're right - at the Atlanta conference I presented a paper called 
'Shakespearean Features of the Poetic Style of Arden of Faversham', 
which was shortly afterwards published in the German journal Archiv fur 
das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, 230 (1993), 279-304. 
But the paper was pretty tentative, including the disclaimer: 'Of course 
the kinds of argument advanced in this paper fall far short of 
demonstrating that Shakespeare had a hand in the composition of Arden of 
Faversham'. The aim was to show that the ascription to Shakespeare, 
favoured by many nineteenth-century critics, deserved reconsideration."

Thanks, Mac, for clarifying this issue.

Bill

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       William Godshalk <godshawl@ucmail.uc.edu>
Date:       Monday, 18 May 2009 18:17:52 -0400
Subject:    Arden of Feversham

Allow me to add one more clarification from Mac:

"I've no recollection of ever writing on SHAKSPER that I don't believe 
Shakespeare was a part-author of Arden of Faversham. "No recollection" 
may sound a bit like the phrase of a politician or a prisoner in the 
dock, but the fact is that I do believe that Shakespeare was responsible 
for at least the Quarrel Scene, scene viii in Martin Wine's Revels 
edition. I published an article arguing as much in the Fall 2006 issue 
of Shakespeare Quarterly (Volume 57, number 3)."

So please forgive me for my mistakes.

Bill
_______________________________________________________________
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: "Concessions"
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "What ho, Horatio"
• Next in thread: Hardy M. Cook: "Arden of Feversham"
• Maybe reply: Hardy M. Cook: "Arden of Feversham"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]