1993

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 703.  Tuesday, 2 November 1993.
 
(1)     From:   Mary Jane Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 1 Nov 93 16:18:26 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0699  Re: SHAKSPER FAQ
 
(2)     From:   Tad Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 2 Nov 1993 09:37:22 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0699  Re: Facts and Problems
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mary Jane Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 1 Nov 93 16:18:26 -0500
Subject: 4.0699  Re: SHAKSPER FAQ
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0699  Re: SHAKSPER FAQ
 
As a faithful reader and seldom contributor, Hardy, I agree that making
several passes over a subject yields new insights- but not necessarily
stable ones.
 
Mary Jane Miller,
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tad Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 2 Nov 1993 09:37:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 4.0699  Re: Facts and Problems
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0699  Re: Facts and Problems
 
I second the motion for a revision of Chambers' "Facts and Problems," and
for "The Elizabethan Stage" too. Any takers? (I'm busy this week...)
 
One thing I'd like to see in a revision is fuller extracts. Some of the
most interesting connections come from reading around the "edges" of the
core material. For example, Chambers gives only a fraction of the material
in the Belott vs. Mountjoy suit; we have Shakespeare's answers to the
questions, but not (if I remember correctly) the full text of the original
questions. Seeing the two of them together is important, and seeing other
people's responses to the same questions is also important: without the
context, the extracts sometimes seem to be saying something different.
Tucker Brooke gave a much more satisfying extract in his small collection
"Shakespeare of Stratford." The originals, in a 1910 issue of "Nebraska
Studies," are hard for the general public to come by.
 
John Shakespeare was called before the Queen's Bench in 1580, along with
140 other men around the country, for posing a threat to the Queen's
peace. What was that all about? Who sponsored it, how did they collect the
names? JS's surety was a tradesman from Nottingham. Who was he? How could
JS have known him? Has anyone searched the Nottingham records for
enlightenment? Simply recording that he was fined is a "fact" -- what it
means is a "problem" that deserves full discussion of the possible
implications. (A better title for the revision might be "A Study of Facts
and Possibilities.")
 
Schoenbaum's wonderful narrative is no substitute for a new collection of
full, "authenticated," and set-in-context transcripts of source documents.
 
Speaking of which, wasn't there supposed to be a major new biography, with
new documents, sometime this winter? Does anyone remember this
announcement, and know anything about the status of the project?
 
     Tad Davis
     This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.