Subject
Re: Shakespearean joint authorship
From
Date
Body
Dear Brian,
It will be interesting to see whether Arthur Kinney and Hugh Craig's
analysis of Shakespeare's texts (based apparently on a new method) comes to
the same conclusions. Vickers's recent suggestion that John Davies wrote A
Lover's Complaint has been (I think) convincingly shattered by Marina
Tarlinskaja, using an analysis based on where stress falls in a line of
verse. (See Shakespeare and the Low Countries, ed. Douglas Brooks, Mellen
2005). She also thinks the LC is earlier than any Shakespeare. But this is
where much attribution of 'Shakespeare's' work to others might go astray:
suppose his own very, very early work to be revised by himself. Then what is
on the official databases is only mid-Shakespearean, and the Peele-like bits
could be Peele-influenced juvenile Shakespeare. I know it doesn't fit the
accepted biographies. (But it fits mine as proposed in Pseudonymous
Shakespeare (Ashgate 2006).
I find the Peele collaboration the least convincing one; but I am no good at
statistical analysis, only at thinking up scenarios according to which its
assumptions could be considered unsafe.
Best wishes, Penny McC.
_____
From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum [mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU] On Behalf
Of Brian Boyd
Sent: 12 October 2006 23:33
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] Shakespearean joint authorship
This may be of interest to nobody but Sam and me, but in any case:
Samuel Schoenbaum was indeed a distinguished Shakespearean. Alfred Appel
gave Nabokov Schoenbaum's William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life as a
present, prompting VN to say "This is how biography should be done."
Nevertheless, Schoenbaum's mastery of the documents of Shakespeare's life
and times made him assume that only documentary evidence counted. Most of
the modern work on collaborative authorship had not been done at the time
Schoenbaum made his judgements on internal as opposed to external evidence,
but the convergence of findings by scholars like Mac Jackson, Gary Taylor
(editor of the Oxford Shakespeare Complete Works, general editor of the
Oxford Middleton) and John Jowett (associate editor of the Oxford
Shakespeare and the Oxford Middleton, and general editor of the Arden Early
Modern Drama series) puts beyond doubt the division of scenes in all the
cases I cited. Modern databases allow possible authors--ALL the works of ALL
the playwrights writing at the time--to be analyzed statistically. If
Schoenbaum had known the evidence, even if only through Vickers's
assessment, he would have changed his mind.
Brian Boyd
On 13/10/2006, at 10:59 AM, NABOKV-L wrote:
As always, there is little to add to what Brian remarks, but since
Steve kindly invites, a few thoughts.
My knowledge is a bit older -- much gained from my days as graduate
assistant to Samuel Schoenbaum, who was to Shakespeare biography what
Brian is to Nabokov!
Schoenbaum also wrote extensively on Elizabethan dramatic authorship.
From him, I learned some skepticism about the kind of pinpoint division
of plays scene-by-scene or line-by-line which still persists. I tell
my undergraduate students that about the only thing of which they can
be sure in this area is this: not everything in your "Complete Works
of Shakespeare" is actually by Shakespeare, and not everything by
Shakespeare is in your "Complete Works." Certainly for over a half
century (W.W.Greg, P. Williams, J.C.Maxwell, etc.), critics and editors
of "Timon" have seen evidence of multiple authorship.
Non-Shakespeareans might also be interested in knowing that the play's
place and even inclusion in the First Folio of 1623 is also rather
vexed.
In relation to the ongoing discussion of "Pale Fire," it might be noted
that nobody has ever suggested that "Timon of Athens" was written by
Apemantus, "a churlish philosopher."
--------------------------------------
Sam
Dr. Samuel Schuman
Garrey Carruthers Distinguished Chair
in Honors
The University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM (505) 277-4396
Search the <http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html> Nabokv-L
archive at UCSB
Contact the Editors <mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu>
All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both
co-editors.
<http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm> Visit Zembla
<http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm> View Nabokv-L Policies
Search <http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html> the Nabokv-L
archive at UCSB
Contact <mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu> the Editors
All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both
co-editors.
Visit Zembla <http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm>
View Nabokv-L Policies <http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm>
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
It will be interesting to see whether Arthur Kinney and Hugh Craig's
analysis of Shakespeare's texts (based apparently on a new method) comes to
the same conclusions. Vickers's recent suggestion that John Davies wrote A
Lover's Complaint has been (I think) convincingly shattered by Marina
Tarlinskaja, using an analysis based on where stress falls in a line of
verse. (See Shakespeare and the Low Countries, ed. Douglas Brooks, Mellen
2005). She also thinks the LC is earlier than any Shakespeare. But this is
where much attribution of 'Shakespeare's' work to others might go astray:
suppose his own very, very early work to be revised by himself. Then what is
on the official databases is only mid-Shakespearean, and the Peele-like bits
could be Peele-influenced juvenile Shakespeare. I know it doesn't fit the
accepted biographies. (But it fits mine as proposed in Pseudonymous
Shakespeare (Ashgate 2006).
I find the Peele collaboration the least convincing one; but I am no good at
statistical analysis, only at thinking up scenarios according to which its
assumptions could be considered unsafe.
Best wishes, Penny McC.
_____
From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum [mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU] On Behalf
Of Brian Boyd
Sent: 12 October 2006 23:33
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] Shakespearean joint authorship
This may be of interest to nobody but Sam and me, but in any case:
Samuel Schoenbaum was indeed a distinguished Shakespearean. Alfred Appel
gave Nabokov Schoenbaum's William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life as a
present, prompting VN to say "This is how biography should be done."
Nevertheless, Schoenbaum's mastery of the documents of Shakespeare's life
and times made him assume that only documentary evidence counted. Most of
the modern work on collaborative authorship had not been done at the time
Schoenbaum made his judgements on internal as opposed to external evidence,
but the convergence of findings by scholars like Mac Jackson, Gary Taylor
(editor of the Oxford Shakespeare Complete Works, general editor of the
Oxford Middleton) and John Jowett (associate editor of the Oxford
Shakespeare and the Oxford Middleton, and general editor of the Arden Early
Modern Drama series) puts beyond doubt the division of scenes in all the
cases I cited. Modern databases allow possible authors--ALL the works of ALL
the playwrights writing at the time--to be analyzed statistically. If
Schoenbaum had known the evidence, even if only through Vickers's
assessment, he would have changed his mind.
Brian Boyd
On 13/10/2006, at 10:59 AM, NABOKV-L wrote:
As always, there is little to add to what Brian remarks, but since
Steve kindly invites, a few thoughts.
My knowledge is a bit older -- much gained from my days as graduate
assistant to Samuel Schoenbaum, who was to Shakespeare biography what
Brian is to Nabokov!
Schoenbaum also wrote extensively on Elizabethan dramatic authorship.
From him, I learned some skepticism about the kind of pinpoint division
of plays scene-by-scene or line-by-line which still persists. I tell
my undergraduate students that about the only thing of which they can
be sure in this area is this: not everything in your "Complete Works
of Shakespeare" is actually by Shakespeare, and not everything by
Shakespeare is in your "Complete Works." Certainly for over a half
century (W.W.Greg, P. Williams, J.C.Maxwell, etc.), critics and editors
of "Timon" have seen evidence of multiple authorship.
Non-Shakespeareans might also be interested in knowing that the play's
place and even inclusion in the First Folio of 1623 is also rather
vexed.
In relation to the ongoing discussion of "Pale Fire," it might be noted
that nobody has ever suggested that "Timon of Athens" was written by
Apemantus, "a churlish philosopher."
--------------------------------------
Sam
Dr. Samuel Schuman
Garrey Carruthers Distinguished Chair
in Honors
The University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM (505) 277-4396
Search the <http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html> Nabokv-L
archive at UCSB
Contact the Editors <mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu>
All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both
co-editors.
<http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm> Visit Zembla
<http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm> View Nabokv-L Policies
Search <http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html> the Nabokv-L
archive at UCSB
Contact <mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu> the Editors
All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both
co-editors.
Visit Zembla <http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm>
View Nabokv-L Policies <http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm>
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm