Skip Navigation



Literary and Linguistic Computing Advance Access published online on August 14, 2009
Literary and Linguistic Computing, doi:10.1093/llc/fqp030
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in Lit Linguist Computing
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Elliott, W. E. Y.
Right arrow Articles by Valenza, R. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ALLC and ACH. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Two tough nuts to crack: did Shakespeare write the ‘Shakespeare’ portions of Sir Thomas More and Edward III? Part II: Conclusion

Ward E. Y. Elliott and Robert J. Valenza

Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, California, USA

Correspondence: Ward E. Y. Elliott, Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, CA 91711-6420, USA. E-mail: welliott{at}cmc.edu

  Abstract

Part I of this series, [doi:10.1093/llc/fqp029], applied our ‘new-optics’ methodology to the ‘Shakespeare’ scenes in STMO and concluded that it had too much Shakespeare discrepancy to fit comfortably into the Canon. We considered it an improbable, but not impossible Shakespeare ascription for the 1600s and placed it for now in the High Apocrypha. We thought it extremely improbable that the whole of STMO could be by Shakespeare, or that the ‘Shakespeare’ parts could have been written in the 1590s. Part II, published here, addresses the ‘Shakespeare’ scenes of Edward III. Taken separately, four of the five ‘Shakespeare’ blocks of Edw3 fall inside our Shakespeare ballpark. So does a sixth block, scenes 4.05–4.09. If we followed the consensus strictly, all five Shakespeare blocks, taken as a group, would not make a probable solo Shakespeare ascription. However, if we switched 4.04 to ‘non-Shakespeare,’ and 4.05–4.09 to ‘Shakespeare,’ the revised Shakespeare blocks would be a plausible Shakespeare ascription even as a group, justifying the inclusion of Edw3 in the Canon as partly Shakespeare's: 1.02; 2.01–2.02; and 4.05–4.09. The odds that the ‘non-Shakespeare’ scenes, collectively, or individually (except for 4.05–4.09) could be his are vanishingly low. The full article may be found online at http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/facultysites/govt/FacMember/welliott/UTConference/2ToughNuts.pdf


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in Lit Linguist Computing:

Two tough nuts to crack: did Shakespeare write the ‘Shakespeare’ portions of Sir Thomas More and Edward III? Part I
Ward E. Y. Elliott and Robert J. Valenza
Lit Linguist Computing 2009 10.1093/llc/fqp029. [Abstract] [Full Text]  





Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.