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
|