Authorship in Antiquity
Caelius
authorship of a work can be confirmed or disproved? I never realized
the number of works whose authenticity has been doubted: we can
basically start with the Iliad, Odyssey, and go down the line to
Aesch. PV; Eur. Rhesus, IA; Cic. Ad. Herr.; Ov. Epp; right on down to
Shakespeare. The only case that appears to hold a general consensus
these days is that of the Auctor Ad Herrenium. With all the others,
though, it just appears almost impossible to pronounce a final word,
regardless of the amount of stylistic, aesthetic, or indirect
testimony available. Does anyone know of any examples besides these
in which someone has been able to prove or disprove authorship?
Caelius
georges
wrote:
>Does anyone have any thoughts about the various ways in which impugned
>authorship of a work can be confirmed or disproved?
impugned or imputed? I guess that the answer to this question would be
quite different, depending on which word you intended to use here.
geo...@us.inter.netbonkers (remove bonkers)
Caelius
(georges) wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Mar 2001 18:54:49 GMT, thelon...@hotmail.com (Caelius)
>wrote:
>
>>Does anyone have any thoughts about the various ways in which impugned
>>authorship of a work can be confirmed or disproved?
>
>impugned or imputed? I guess that the answer to this question would be
>quite different, depending on which word you intended to use here.
Either one really. The more that I think about it, the more difficult
it seems, if the smallest amount of doubt is allowed, to make a
definite statement on authorship.
Caelius
Robert Stonehouse
A famous case is Bentley's demolition of the Letters of Phalaris.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
john_baker
wrote:
>Does anyone have any thoughts about the various ways in which impugned
Many texts have been disputed with good cause, including Biblical
texts. But the fact they keep getting printed with the original
author's name on them makes it nearly impossible to change the opinion
of time.
And of course, we can never change the opinions of those who have died
thinking that Shakespeare or Plato wrote a given text, even if we were
to prove conclusively that they hadn't.
So I think its something that's fun for scholars to debate and it
hones our skills on all fronts, but it will come to very little.
First read the text.
Second understand it and how it makes sense today.
Then relearn it in the context of its time and afterwards, if there is
still time worry about authorship, passionately.
And since this is the classical net...have a go at it in its original
language...that should take a few more years...and leave authorship
questions for your dottage...
john baker
John Baker
Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
"Chance favors the prepared mind." Louis Pasteur
Caelius
wrote:
Many thanks for pointing this out. I'm looking forward very much to
reading his arguments.
Caelius
Caelius
>texts. But the fact they keep getting printed with the original
>author's name on them makes it nearly impossible to change the opinion
>of time.
>
>And of course, we can never change the opinions of those who have died
>thinking that Shakespeare or Plato wrote a given text, even if we were
>to prove conclusively that they hadn't.
>
>So I think its something that's fun for scholars to debate and it
>hones our skills on all fronts, but it will come to very little.
>
>First read the text.
>
>Second understand it and how it makes sense today.
>
>Then relearn it in the context of its time and afterwards, if there is
>still time worry about authorship, passionately.
>
>And since this is the classical net...have a go at it in its original
>language...that should take a few more years...and leave authorship
>questions for your dottage...
>
I think I understand your general drift, although I don't know if I
would recommend questions of authenticity for those who cannot read
the original language. If someone had asked me about this question
three months ago, I probably would have made very little of it.
Recently, however, I was given a scolding for saying that Aeschylus
wrote the Prometheus Vinctus. It just opened my eyes to the great
debates that can rage over authorship; and that despite all the effort
and wit, little can be declared affirmatively.
Caelius
Alkibiades
wrote:
Yes, in spite of all the effort and wit much is certainly declared
affirmatively (and rather lucratively). But then again, reading or
listening to some of the debates in ASCAP and the like can be both
enlightening, amusing, entertaining (i.e., flattering), frightening,
and interesting.
- Alkibiades
john_baker
wrote:
>>Many texts have been disputed with good cause, including Biblical
>>texts. But the fact they keep getting printed with the original
>>author's name on them makes it nearly impossible to change the opinion
>>of time.
>>
>>And of course, we can never change the opinions of those who have died
>>thinking that Shakespeare or Plato wrote a given text, even if we were
>>to prove conclusively that they hadn't.
>>
>>So I think its something that's fun for scholars to debate and it
>>hones our skills on all fronts, but it will come to very little.
>>
>>First read the text.
>>
>>Second understand it and how it makes sense today.
>>
>>Then relearn it in the context of its time and afterwards, if there is
>>still time worry about authorship, passionately.
>>
>>And since this is the classical net...have a go at it in its original
>>language...that should take a few more years...and leave authorship
>>questions for your dottage...
>>
>
>I think I understand your general drift, although I don't know if I
>would recommend questions of authenticity for those who cannot read
>the original language.
A good point, of course. But I toss out something that continues to
bug me. I've published in LLC on authorship (Literary and Linguistic
Computing). And in my opinion computers can handle any language. So
they can study an essay or poem by Ovid, in Latin, and tell us how it
stacks up, in the Latin, with another work said to have been Ovid's.
So this sort of work, likely valid enough, can be done without a
command of the original language.
There are other hurdles as well.
Since the advent of printing, spelling, which might help the most, has
be formalized.
On the other hand, suppose we knew Ovid always wrote "Leandre,
salutem" as "Leendre, salut'm" and we found a ms. so
inscribed....would it be Ovid's or might not someone else have
made the same mistake in transcribing Heroides XIX?
As much as I hate to say it. Writing isn't as personal as DNA or
fingerprints.
And it is doubtful anyone, ever, will devise a foolproof method for
authorship attributions.
Shakespeare, for example, can be proven to write so much like
Christopher Marlowe, that stylistically individual works of S's are
closer to M's than either are to themselves.
But this doesn't prove their identity, even though I would like it to.
>If someone had asked me about this question
>three months ago, I probably would have made very little of it.
>Recently, however, I was given a scolding for saying that Aeschylus
>wrote the Prometheus Vinctus. It just opened my eyes to the great
>debates that can rage over authorship; and that despite all the effort
>and wit, little can be declared affirmatively.
>
Yes authorship questions are hot and important...
>Caelius
john
Robert Stonehouse
...
>I think I understand your general drift, although I don't know if I
>would recommend questions of authenticity for those who cannot read
>the original language. If someone had asked me about this question
>three months ago, I probably would have made very little of it.
>Recently, however, I was given a scolding for saying that Aeschylus
>wrote the Prometheus Vinctus. It just opened my eyes to the great
>debates that can rage over authorship; and that despite all the effort
>and wit, little can be declared affirmatively.
My own, rather crass, problem with the Prometheus is that it just
isn't difficult enough. Knowing the Oresteia, having read the
simplicities of the Prometheus, when I came to the Septem I had the
comforting feeling "Ah! This really _is_ Aeschylus".
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Dmitry Sheinin
news:3aa5de64...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
> thelon...@hotmail.com (Caelius) wrote:
> >Recently, however, I was given a scolding for saying that Aeschylus
> >wrote the Prometheus Vinctus. It just opened my eyes to the great
> >debates that can rage over authorship; and that despite all the effort
> >and wit, little can be declared affirmatively.
>
> My own, rather crass, problem with the Prometheus is that it just
> isn't difficult enough. Knowing the Oresteia, having read the
> simplicities of the Prometheus, when I came to the Septem I had the
> comforting feeling "Ah! This really _is_ Aeschylus".
The controversy about the Prometheus has
been long and quite verbose. It seems, however,
that balanced evaluations have always tended to
authenticity. The argument that Aeschylus'
mastership is clearly felt there can always be
branded subjective but remains valid. There are
enough "Aescylian" words there, and the theme
of the supposed trilogy is actually that of the Parodos
of the Agamemnon enriched by some Sophist-style
rationales. "Too clear speach" (as compared to
others, 1st of all the Agamemnon) has also been
exaplained by the Sophist influence.
Actorbrass
believed that Shakespeare's Hamlet was not, in fact, written soley by himself.
It is argued that the four (or even five) varying styles of writing toward the
finale of the piece are too different to have been penned by Shakespeare.
Chris Brassington actor...@hotmail.com
