Hi Peter,
Sure; it's
Klemp, P.J. “Lancelot Andrewes, Plagiarism and Pedagogy at Hampton Court
in 1606.” /Philological Quarterly /77 (1998): 15–39.
really a smart piece.
Michael
Peter C. Herman wrote:
> I'm sure I'm not the only one hoping that Prof. Saenger could give us
> a fuller citation for the Klemp article.
>
> pch
>
> At 09:54 AM 9/20/2007, you wrote:
>
>> Love, Marotti, Foucault and Kastan have all, in various ways, argued
>> that the word "author" was more important more for legal reasons (to
>> hold a person accountable for treason or heresy, primarily;
>> concomittantly, to use a "trusted" author-name, like Calvin, to
>> assure legality) rather than sylistic creation. I've also argued that
>> the category of "author" was more useful to publishers in advertising
>> their books than it was for the pen-in-hand people. PJ Klemp has a
>> great piece on an instance of plagiarism in the 17th c which casts
>> light on these issues.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> Peter C. Herman wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
--
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
|
