Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1995 :: October ::
Re: *Edmond Ironside*
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0817.  Thursday, 19 October 1995.
 
(1)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 21:39:35 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0810  Edmund Ironside
 
(2)     From:   Donald Foster <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 11:32:40 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0810  Edmund Ironside
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 21:39:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 6.0810  Edmund Ironside
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0810  Edmund Ironside
 
In the footnotes to his recent *The Real Shakespeare* (New Haven: Yale UP,
1995), Sams recurrently points out the relevance of his biography to *Edmund
Ironsides.*  I've reread the play twice recently (and many years ago I saw it
performed at the Univ. of Toledo, OH) and it doesn't SEEM like Shakespeare's to
me. I say this without consulting Don Foster's SHAXICON.
 
But is it possible that Shakespeare could write plays that are (and were) real
dogs, and that some if not all of the plays in the Shakespeare Apocrypha were
really written by him?
 
I think I recall someone suggesting that we might think in terms of the
Shakespeare atelier and scripts written by playwrights under Shakespeare's
influence and direction, and possibly with some of his writing.  I'm thinking
of *Sir John Oldcastle,* which seems to have direct references to *1H4* and
*H5.* Perhaps *EI* is also from the Shakespeare atelier!
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk (who dreams on)
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Donald Foster <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 11:32:40 +0100
Subject: 6.0810  Edmund Ironside
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0810  Edmund Ironside
 
Robert Hatch inquires about *Edmond Ironside*, one of countless irresponsible
attributions made by Eric Sams. (According to Sams, Sh. is indisputably the
author of more anonymous plays than you can count on your twenty fingers and
toes.) No one would pay attention to Sams if it weren't for his flamboyance and
dogged persistence in popping off in the letters column of *TLS.*  Anyway, you
might begin with the review of Sams's *Shakespeare's Lost Play* (*SQ* 39.1
[1988]: 118-123). Shakespeare certainly knew *Ironside*--he used it as a
non-narrative source for *Titus Andronicus* and may have acted in it; but
Shakespeare's hand is nowhere apparent in the play, even as a collaborator or
reviser.  It was probably by Robert Greene.  (An aside to Robert Hatch: I'll
put in the mail to you a few notes on Greene's hand in *Ironside.*)
 
D. Foster
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.