In Defence of Kyd: Evaluating the Claim for Shakespeare’s Part Authorship of Arden of Faversham

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Authorship Pub Date : 2018-12-13 DOI:10.21825/AJ.V7I2.9736
Darren Freebury-Jones
{"title":"In Defence of Kyd: Evaluating the Claim for Shakespeare’s Part Authorship of Arden of Faversham","authors":"Darren Freebury-Jones","doi":"10.21825/AJ.V7I2.9736","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"MacDonald P. Jackson first argued for Shakespeare’s part authorship of Arden of Faversham in his university dissertation in 1963. He has devoted several articles to developing this argument, summarized in his monograph Determining the Shakespeare Canon (2014). Jackson’s part ascription has led to the inclusion of the domestic tragedy in The New Oxford Shakespeare. However, Jackson and his New Oxford Shakespeare colleagues have either dismissed or neglected the evidence for Thomas Kyd’s sole authorship presented by other scholars. This essay focuses primarily on Jackson’s monograph and argues that the evidence for adding the play to Kyd’s canon, encompassing phraseology, linguistic idiosyncrasies, and verse characteristics, seems solid.","PeriodicalId":30455,"journal":{"name":"Authorship","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Authorship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21825/AJ.V7I2.9736","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

MacDonald P. Jackson first argued for Shakespeare’s part authorship of Arden of Faversham in his university dissertation in 1963. He has devoted several articles to developing this argument, summarized in his monograph Determining the Shakespeare Canon (2014). Jackson’s part ascription has led to the inclusion of the domestic tragedy in The New Oxford Shakespeare. However, Jackson and his New Oxford Shakespeare colleagues have either dismissed or neglected the evidence for Thomas Kyd’s sole authorship presented by other scholars. This essay focuses primarily on Jackson’s monograph and argues that the evidence for adding the play to Kyd’s canon, encompassing phraseology, linguistic idiosyncrasies, and verse characteristics, seems solid.
为基德辩护:评价莎士比亚部分作家法弗舍姆的阿登的主张
麦克唐纳·P·杰克逊在1963年的大学论文中首次为莎士比亚的《法弗舍姆的阿登》部分作者身份辩护。他专门撰写了几篇文章来发展这一论点,总结在他的专著《确定莎士比亚正典》(2014)中。杰克逊的部分归属导致《新牛津莎士比亚》中包含了家庭悲剧。然而,杰克逊和他的新牛津莎士比亚同事要么驳回,要么忽视了其他学者提出的托马斯·基德唯一作者的证据。本文主要关注杰克逊的专著,并认为将该剧加入基德经典的证据似乎是确凿的,包括措辞、语言特质和诗歌特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信