Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 3, No. 51. Monday, 9 Mar 1992.
 
 
(1)	From: 	Michael Dobson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 3.0034  David Richman on Shakespeare's Action &c
	Date: 	Sat, 7 Mar 92 11:38:28 CST
 
(2)	Date: 	Sat, 7 Mar 1992 14:39:00 -0500
	From: 	Vinton G. Cerf <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Subj: 	Folger Coriolanus
 
(3)	Date:   Mon, 9 Mar 1992 13:11:29 -0600 (CST)
	From: 	Jim Harner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 3.0047  Q: Reviews of Folger *Coriolanus*?
 
(4)	Date: 	Mon, 9 Mar 92 11:48:12 PST
	From:	This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
	Subj: 	SHK 3.0049  Q: Prospero's Epilogue: Prayer's Assault on Mercy?
 
(5)	Date: 	Mon, 9 Mar 1992 15:08 CST
	From: 	This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
	Subj: 	Re: Q: Prospero's Epilogue: Prayer's Assault on Mercy?
 
	
(1)---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Michael Dobson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: 3.0034  David Richman on Shakespeare's Action &c
Comment: 	Re: SHK 3.0034  David Richman on Shakespeare's Action &c
Date: 		Sat, 7 Mar 92 11:38:28 CST
 
Dear SHAKSPERians --
 
      In his review of the Halletts' *Shakespeare's Action*, David Richman
claims that
 
      For more than two centuries after the death of this eminently
successful actor-playwright, it was universally held that he had cast his
great, albeit uneven, poetry into an unfortunate dramatic form he had never
really bothered to master. In other words, this quintessential man of the
theatre was held by generations of critics who knew little or nothing about
the theatre to be a bad dramatist.
 
      Many readers will have recognized this as a familiar misconception
stated in its strongest form.  Apart from pointing out the obvious facts
that John Dryden, Nicholas Rowe, John Dennis and Lewis Theobald -- who
between them more or less founded the Shakespeare industry that continues
to pay our rent -- were all working dramatists, and as such may have known
even more about the theatre than modern academics, and that the
anti-theatrical sentiments of Alexander Pope and Charles Lamb can hardly
have been 'universal' in a period during which the staging of
Shakespeare's plays accounted for about one in six public performances of
anything, I write now merely to urge readers interested in finding out more
about how the Enlightenment revalued and transformed Shakespeare to order a
copy of my forthcoming book, *The Making of the National Poet: Shakespeare,
Adaptation and Authorship, 1660-1769*, due out from Oxford University Press
in the autumn.  Read, and censure. Do so, but buy it first.
 
       I enjoyed the rest of the review! But it's time that the notion that
Shakespeare was utterly 'misunderstood' as a playwright between 1640 and
the glorious dawn of the twentieth century was put away; ours, in so far as
we agree, is only one more in a long series of re-understandings.  See Jean
Marsden's excellent anthology *The Appropriation of Shakespeare:
Post-Renaissance Reconstructions of the Works and the Myth* (Harvester
Press, UK, St Martin's, US) for details.
 
       Yours unashamedly flaunting a long wig,
 
	Michael Dobson
 
(2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 		Sat, 7 Mar 1992 14:39:00 -0500
From: 		Vinton G. Cerf <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: 	Folger Coriolanus
 
We will try to track down some reviews of Coriolanus from
the Folger performance and send them on the net. In the
meantime, we understand that Kenneth Branagh is scheduled
to play in Coriolanus sometime in the next several months,
but we don't know where or when. Does anyone happen to know
and, if so, at which theatre? We would like to make reservations
if the site isn't too far from Washington, DC.
 
Many thanks,
 
Vint and Sigrid Cerf
 
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:    	Mon, 9 Mar 1992 13:11:29 -0600 (CST)
From: 		Jim Harner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: 3.0047  Q: Reviews of Folger *Coriolanus*?
Comment: 	RE: SHK 3.0047  Q: Reviews of Folger *Coriolanus*?
 
There was a review by David Richards in +New York Times=, 6 Oct. 1991,
sec. 2, pp. 5, 43.
					Jim Harner
					World Shakespeare BIbliography
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 		Mon, 9 Mar 92 11:48:12 PST
From:		This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: Q: Prospero's Epilogue: Prayer's Assault on Mercy?
Comment: 	SHK 3.0049  Q: Prospero's Epilogue: Prayer's Assault on Mercy?
 
What a nice observation; I had never attended to that image before.
I don't know that it has a tradition behind it, but as an image
it suggests a state of mind so self-denigrating that it things of
God's condemnation or wrath as a barrier to mercy.
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 		Mon, 9 Mar 1992 15:08 CST
From: 		This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: 	Re: Q: Prospero's Epilogue: Prayer's Assault on Mercy?
 
Mr Engler might be interested in the interpretation I give in the article I
submitted to the BB in application for membership.
 
Ben Schneider
Lawrence University
 
	[Ed. Note: The file Ben Schneider mentions is SCHNEIDR TEMPEST
	SHAKSPER on the Fileserver. -- k.s.]

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.