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.
|
