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
|