Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: August ::
Re: Caesar's Revenge
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1948  Saturday, 4 August 2001

[1]     From:   John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 3 Aug 2001 09:30:21 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 12.1920 Re: Caesar's Revenge

[2]     From:   Stephen Dobbin <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 3 Aug 2001 10:05:22 +0100 (BST)
        Subj:   Caesar's Revenge: In Defense of Sams


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 3 Aug 2001 09:30:21 +0100
Subject: 12.1920 Re: Caesar's Revenge
Comment:        RE: SHK 12.1920 Re: Caesar's Revenge

Richard Kennedy writes:

>Nor do I know what that 1607 date might mean.

Well, here's a clue.  "Antony and Cleopatra" seems to have been the
smash hit of 1606.  (How is another question!)  And provoked Samuel
Daniel into revising his "Cleopatra".  And publishers into publishing
likely plays on the same theme ... or students into writing them...  I'm
not convinced that "Caesar's Revenge" is earlier than A&C.  Try looking
for parallels with "Coriolanus"!

John Briggs

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephen Dobbin <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 3 Aug 2001 10:05:22 +0100 (BST)
Subject:        Caesar's Revenge: In Defense of Sams.

Mike Jensen writes, re Caesar's Revenge "Eric Sams can show more
parallels than this for *Ironsides* and all of *Edward III*, but not
convincingly."

I haven't read Sams' edition of *Edward III* but I did read his
*Ironsides* and my question is: how much more do you need to find an
argument convincing? The sheer number of parallels Sams raises, the way
he groups and classifies them, in particular (if I remember correctly)
the mistakes and misinterpretations in biblical allusion shared by
Shakespeare and the author of Ironsides made, for me, a very strong case
for keeping an open mind about Shakespeare's hand in its authorship. I
admit I was out of the 'Shakespeare loop' when Sams' edition was
published, but since then I have seen it dismissed more often than I
have seen it refuted.

Imagine if *Titus Andronicus* or *Love's Labours* were only extant in
anonymous quarto editions and not mentioned by Meres, etc. Are we so
very confident we could make a more convincing case for Shakespeare's
authorship of those plays than Sams makes for Ironsides.

Incidentally, my ever creative spell-checker prefers 'Tiptoes'
Andronicus and, on reflection, so do I.

Stephen Dobbin

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.