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 12.1951  Tuesday, 7 August 2001

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 04 Aug 2001 08:25:18 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1948 Re: Caesar's Revenge

[2]     From:   William Sutton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 4 Aug 2001 15:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1948 Re: Caesar's Revenge


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 04 Aug 2001 08:25:18 -0700
Subject: 12.1948 Re: Caesar's Revenge
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1948 Re: Caesar's Revenge

Stephen Dobbin,

>how much more do you need to find an
>argument convincing?

Please reread my post.  That is answered there.  It is also answered in
Jonathan Hope's admirable book The Authorship of Shakespeare's Plays,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Sorry, but I'm at my house in
Oregon, and the book is in my apartment in California, so I don't have
the year.  Hope once mentioned on list that he is a friend of Sams, by
the way.  Hope concludes that Ironsides being Shakespearean is possible,
but not proven.

>a very strong case for keeping an open mind about Shakespeare's hand in its
>authorship.

Aw, now everybody knows I have a closed mind.

>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.

Well, Titus and LLL have the virtue of being in the First Folio, and I
won't deal with a fantasy.  Edmund Ironsides is not in the First Folio,
and that matters.  Of course neither are EIII and TNK, so the Folio TOC
is not infallible, but it is a strong indicator.  If Ironsides were in
the First Folio, there would be no problem, obviously.

Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Sutton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 4 Aug 2001 15:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 12.1948 Re: Caesar's Revenge
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1948 Re: Caesar's Revenge

-Hi everyone,

Is it possible someone of the time was parodying Shakespeare's style?
re: the ongoing discussion on Caesar's revenge and Edward 3rd etc. I saw
the Edward 3 in NYC and during the performance arrived at the idea that
it was a giant p*** take. The person I saw it with also raised the point
that Shakespeare never self-referenced in his plays. Is this true in
your estimable collective eyes?

I read Sams years ago in connection with the sonnets and remember being
well-impressed by the arguments.  (he goes for early dating though
doesn't he, which makes nonsense of my following hypothesis. But
nonetheless I'll jump). But Shakespeare is in the performance, not just
the words. I think a good method of testing if it Shakespeare is a
staged-reading of the material. Something the Sh. Institute would do
every Thursday evening followed by discussion, fuelled by wine and
opinion. (Truly historical methods of analysis, re: the Mermaid Tavern)!

Looking at the developments of the time suggested: K. Duncan-Jones' plea
for late revision of the Sonnets, the masque's of Jonson at Court,
Daniel's revision and I'm sure many more dramatic and socio-cultural
factors than I'm aware of. I feel the time was ripe for parody.

Also the theatre was on the verge of developing into a two-tier system
of public and private and irrevocable dramatic change was in the air.
(GE Bentley: 'Sh. and his Theatre' being my guide here).

So to recapitulate: parody or not? And did Shakespeare self-reference?

Yours,
William S.

_______________________________________________________________
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.