Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2004 :: October ::
Eric Sams / Edward III
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1822  Tuesday, 5 October 2004

[1]     From:   Michael Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 4 Oct 2004 05:47:31 -1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1814 Eric Sams / Edward III

[2]     From:   Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 4 Oct 2004 18:39:58 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1814 Eric Sams / Edward III


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 4 Oct 2004 05:47:31 -1000
Subject: 15.1814 Eric Sams / Edward III
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1814 Eric Sams / Edward III

Bill Lloyd asks:

By the way, when is Michael Egan's book going to be published in which
he argues that Samuel Rowley's *Thomas of Woodstock, or, First Part of
Richard II* was really written by Shakespeare -- I guess when he was
coming up? I look forward to reading it.

It should be out early next year. Thanks for asking.

--Michael

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 4 Oct 2004 18:39:58 -0400
Subject: 15.1814 Eric Sams / Edward III
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1814 Eric Sams / Edward III

Marcus Dahl

 >What would I find more persuasive evidence on Ed.III?
 >
 >*An original manuscript perhaps?
 >*Agreement between statistical accounts of the text's authorship.
 >*Unbiased editing of the text (unlike Melchiori's for example)
 >* Comparisons of the text's authorship that do rely upon Gary Taylor's
 >hypotheses concerning 1HVI (which I have good reason to suppose flawed
 >at least).
 >* Stylistic evidence concerning the text's supposed 'Shakespearean'
 >authorship of Act 2 which takes into account the clearly orally derived
 >oral formulae - e.g.'Thrice noble' / 'Here comes' / 'See where she
 >comes' etc.
 >* Explanation of the wooing scene (which is perhaps derivative of 3HVI)
 >in terms which do not necessarily presuppose its Shakespearean authorship

More persuasive evidence wouldn't include a name on a title page or a
reference to the play as one of Shakespeare's by a contemporary such as
Meres?

--Bob G.

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.