Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1997 :: May ::
Re: Leir
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0535.  Monday, 5 May 1997.

[1]     From:   David J. Kathman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 4 May 1997 00:34:00 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0529  Re: Cordelia; Leontes; Riverside

[2]     From:   Gabriel Wasserman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 04 May 1997 14:52:34 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0529  Re: Riverside


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David J. Kathman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 4 May 1997 00:34:00 +0100
Subject: 8.0529  Re: Cordelia; Leontes; Riverside
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0529  Re: Cordelia; Leontes; Riverside

Patrick Gillespie writes:

>> >And on a related subject: Are the older King Lear
>
>> You mean *Leir*?                 [or do you mean Q1?]
>
>I mean Leir. Is it seriously being touted as Shakespeare's?

Not by anybody I know of, except possibly Eric Sams, who believes that
much of the anonymous drama of the 1580s and 1590s is by Shakespeare.

>Who's to say
>which of the two *Lear* texts are older? - Q1 or the folio? Arguments
>are made but in the end one can only surmise. Steven Urkowitz makes an
>argument in favor of Q1 being older, as you seem to assume, but the
>whole question is still up for debate.

Actually, Don Foster's SHAXICON provides some pretty convincing evidence
that the Q1 text is older, from around 1605, and that the F1 text
represents a revision by Shakespeare from around 1611-12.  He has a
section in his SHAXICON Notebook on this question, but unfortunately
it's not yet publicly available.

Dave Kathman

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Wasserman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 04 May 1997 14:52:34 -0400
Subject: 8.0529  Re: Riverside
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0529  Re: Riverside

I found it today in a big ("superstore") Barnes & Noble.  However, it
wasn't in any of  the "little" Barnes & Nobles.  In answer to your
question

>Concerning [Edward III]..., I was curious by whom they
>were persuaded. Was it Eric Sams (thinking of his latest book) or does
>this decision go back to Muir and others. If it was Sams, I wonder now
>at the status of Edmund Ironside.

It wasn't Sams.  They themselves say that his book came out too late to
have any influence on them.
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.