Peter is always interesting. I'd say it might depend on the genre of
poetry--defining poetry as Sidney's third "right" sort and not, say,
Thomas Tusser on the one hand or David on the other (David the king, I
mean, not David Miller). To be sure, the case of David is very
special--one man I read got into ther authorship question and then sayd
but, hey, the psalms are all by the Holy Ghost anyway, so it doesn't
matter who wrote ps. 137. So I'd agree with Peter about plays but only
some poetry. I also agree about Calvin--I'd not like to be the Genevan who
added to his commentaries without consulting him. Must stop answering--got
to go be an author myself for a while. Anne.
> Hello all,
>
> Two points. First, in the April 11,1988 issue of The New Yorker,
> James Lardner published a terrific article on the authorship
> question. Well worth looking at.
>
> But also, I've always wondered if the "authorship" issue is
> something that is restricted to such culturally contentious forms as
> fiction, lyric, vernacular poetry, and the public drama. I seem to
> remember that the various editions of Thomas More's works rather
> loudly proclaim his authorship (as do the editions of Utopia, which
> modifies my original thesis), including his polemical works. One
> sees the same ascription of authorship to sermons and to editions of,
> say, Calvin. And various historical narratives, then as today, were
> known by the names of their authors, e.g., Hall, Stow, Grafton, et
> al. or etc. And while we all know that poems and plays could shift
> significantly as they are transcribed and printed, I wonder if the
> same liberties would be taken with a sermon or with an important
> theological work like Calvin's Institutes or his various
> commentaries. In other words, I wonder if the concept of "author"
> existed, but that poetry and drama were not yet considered
> sufficiently respectable in England to earn that title. Yet, that is.
> Sch folks as Ben Jonson and Edmund Spenser were working on changing that.
>
> pch
>
>
>
> At 09:29 AM 9/20/2007, you wrote:
>>Ken's self-quotation provides a wonderful example of making a silk
>>pillow of this nonsense, by tying fantasies of non-Shakespearean
>>authorship to the kind of motivated reading which, in its broadest
>>panoply, applies to all of us. But because of its very nuanced
>>argument, it will, of course, mean nothing to those who desire to
>>believe in mysteries, hidden cryptograms, and other stuff
>>reminiscent of 19th century fiction (which is where, of course, the
>>major impetus of all this came from). It is, then, not so much a
>>taboo as two incompatable conversations; one which is informed by a
>>reasoned analysis of evidence, and the other which is full of
>>hocus-pocus. It is as non-sensical to refer to legitimate scholars
>>as "Stratfordians" as it is to refer to molecular biologists as
>>"Evolutionarians"; and it implies the presence of a deep schism
>>where in fact that deep schism is part of the quasi-religious
>>ceremonies of the fantasists. Many American fantasists (my term for
>>those who advocate a variety of secret Shakespearean identities)
>>make much of the fact that "Shakespeare" is a made up name. You
>>don't hear that much in England because it's not all that
>>uncommon. And many fantasists claim that going to university would
>>be a prerequisite to being a good author, apparently unaware of how
>>radically different university education was in the early modern
>>period, and how unrelated it was to writing poetry, as Alexander
>>Pope would demonstrate (someone like Sidney clearly shows a
>>univerisity-indebted knowledge of poetic *theory*; but that's
>>different). I apologize for prolonging the thread, but I do, with a
>>sigh, feel it compelling to articulate, however ineffectually, the
>>fact I do not see the death of this thread (and similar lines of
>>discussion, one would hope, in any legitimate place of learning) to
>>be in any way closed-minded.
>>
>>Michael
>>
>>HANNIBAL HAMLIN wrote:
>>
>>>As my last thought on this thread (it's something of a virus, and
>>>I'd hate for it to infect this list as it once did SHAKSPER), let
>>>me say that I agree with Tom, Ken, David Lee Miller and
>>>others. There is much interesting work being done and still to be
>>>done about authorship, and Shakespeare's status as "author" has
>>>been very usefully complicated by critics like Brian Vickers, Lukas
>>>Erne, and Patrick Cheney. That said, the "Shakespeare Authorship"
>>>question, as it is known, is a dead-end. As David well notes,
>>>serious scholars have no time for it, not because they conspire
>>>against the truth, but because they DO conspire -- or rather just
>>>work hard -- against willful ignorance. Having lived some years
>>>now in North-Central Ohio, where Evolution is still controversial,
>>>I have developed a fair bit of anger against the doggedly
>>>anti-intellectual. This is not at all the same as intolerance of
>>>disagreement, which is what scholarship is all about. Bu t to
>>>pursue a line of thought that has no serious scholarly basis, that
>>>flies in the face of known fact, that offends even against common
>>>sense, and that is often rooted in simple prejudice -- this is
>>>something to hold in contempt. I do NOT think it has any place in
>>>our classrooms, unless we happen to be teaching the history of
>>>popular notions of Shakespeare (a la Schoenbaum). To give it
>>>serious time (a) takes time away from what we/students should
>>>actually be studying, and (b) might give the impression that the
>>>Oxfordians or Anti-Stratfordians of any sort have some
>>>legitimacy. The Anti-Evolution debates again offer a useful
>>>parallel -- when the Ohio State legislature passed a ruling that
>>>"Intelligent Design" deserved to be taught alongside Evolution in
>>>state schools as an alternative theory, this was not reasonable
>>>compromise but in fact a substantial victory for the Know-Nothings.
>>>
>>>Hannibal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hannibal Hamlin
>>>Associate Professor of English
>>>The Ohio State University
>>>Book Review Editor and Associate Editor, Reformation
>>>
>>>Mailing Address (2007-2009):
>>>
>>>The Folger Shakespeare Library
>>>201 Capitol Street SE
>>>Washington, DC 20003
>>>
>>>Permanent Address:
>>>
>>>Department of English
>>>The Ohio State University
>>>421 Denney Hall, 164 W. 17th Avenue
>>>Columbus, OH 43210-1340
>>>
>>>*----- Original Message -----* *From*: THOMAS HERRON
>>><[log in to unmask]> *Date*: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:31 am
>>>*Subject*: Re: authorship > I must add that DLM's criticism on the
>>>"Spenserian or not?"
>>> > authorship of
>>> > "Verses upon the Earl of Cork's lute" also make fascinating reading.
>>> >
>>> > Brian Vickers et al have been making great headway on the
>>> > textual/linguisticcomponents of the non- or co-authorship of some
>>> > of Shakespeare's poems (cf.
>>> > "A Lover's Complaint") and plays (cf. "Titus Andronicus"), so
>>> > insofar as we
>>> > are forced to acknowledge the fluidity of authorship in
>>> > Shakespeare's hectic
>>> > milieu, then the better off we are. The authorship question
>>> > ("Oxford or
>>> > Shakespeare or Greville?") may be "mal posee" (or mal poseur) as a
>>> > result if
>>> > the basis behind it is to ask, "what original genius wrote this
>>> > stuff?",when the idea of a solidified genius operating
>>> > unhindered/untainted/uncollaborated/unedited/un-posthumously-
>>> > revised in the
>>> > smutty London theatre and publishing scene of the 1580s-1610s is a
>>> > dubiousone.
>>> >
>>> > --Tom H.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 9/20/07 6:15 AM, "David L. Miller" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > I was going to ignore this question, but there's been such a
>>> > lack of
>>> > > decent curmudgeonship thus far, amid all the eloquence and good
>>> > humor,> that I feel compelled to speak up.
>>> > >
>>> > > The only time I ever find the authorship question interesting is
>>> > when> critics like Ken Gross or Jim Nohrnberg write on it. The
>>> > rest of the
>>> > > time it's just a distraction. Life is short, and there are so many
>>> > > really fascinating critical ideas to pursue in reading
>>> > Shakespeare. I
>>> > > really and truly wish this one would just go away. It's not
>>> > taboo, but
>>> > > it sure is tedious!
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>>> > ------------------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 424445062) is spam:
>>> > Spam:
>>> > https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?c=s&i=424445062&m=41f46eef0407Not
>>> > spam: https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?c=n&i=424445062&m=41f46eef0407
>>> > Forget vote:
>>> > https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?c=f&i=424445062&m=41f46eef0407------
>>> > ------------------------------------------------
>>> > END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>>--
>>Michael Saenger, Ph.D.
>>Associate Professor of English
>>PO Box 770
>>Southwestern University
>>Georgetown, TX 78627
>>Office Hours: Tuesday 11 am to 1 pm; Thursday 11 am to 12 noon, and
>>by appointment
>>Phone: 512-863-1787 Fax: 512-863-1535
>
|