1993

Q: The Canon

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 432.  Friday, 16 July 1993.
 
From:           Brian Sobus <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 15 Jul 1993 14:29:52 -0400
Subject:        UnShakespearean
 
Ever since the discussion began on *Cardenio*, I've been wondering about
two things (actually, more than two things have been on my mind, but I'll
try to stick with two):
 
   1)  What is the status of plays like Pericles and the Two Noble Kinsmen?
       They are both in a 1936 ed. of Shakespeare that I have.
 
   2)  Where can I find a list of plays that are considered to be Shakespeare's
       but have not been proven to be his?  After I get such a list, where do
       I find copies of the plays so that I can read them?  If a tree falls in
       a forest....
 
Oh...one more thing would anyone be interested in having these plays as
searchable and annotatable texts files on CD-ROM.  They, of course, would
appear on screen exactly as they would on paper...
 
-Brian
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Joyce and Shakespeare

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 431.  Friday, 16 July 1993.
 
From:           S. W. Reid <SREID@KENTVM>
Date:           Thursday, 15 Jul 93 15:33:54 EST
Subject:        Joyce and Shakespeare
 
A while back (April, actually) a query regarding the `Scylla and Charybdis'
episode in *Ulysses* and Stephen Dedalus's theory of Hamlet got responses
from several members of SHAKSPER. Subsequently it was posted on MODBRITS, our
computer conference on Modern British and Irish Literature, because the
questions about early 20C views seemed equally relevant to that `list'. I
thought SHAKSPER subscribers might be interested in the results. These follow
the initial queries, which provide a context now forgotten by some, perhaps.
 
S. W. Reid
Kent State University
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
 Susan Harris of UNC Chapel Hill writes:
 
"1) Is the factual information Stephen uses to back up his claim true? I.e.,
"did Shakespeare really leave Ann Hathaway his second best bed? Was his son's
"name really Hamnet? Did he really beat his lead actor (I forget the name) to
"an assignation? Etcetera.
 
"2) If this information is not true, would it have been accepted as true at
"the time of Ulysses (June 4 1904?) If not, where would Stephen have gotten
"it?
 
"3) Does the conclusion Stephen draws about Shakespeare's brother having had
"an affair with Ann seem completely wacko to those of you who make this kind
"of conjecture for a living, or is it plausible?
 
"4) Would it have seemed plausible in 1904?
 
After John Cox suggested that Harris read Rene Girard's chapter on Joyce's
reading of Shakespeare in Girard's *A Theater of Envy*, Harris wrote to
ModBrits and added the following to her query:
 
"Someone on the Shakespeare network recommended that I read the chapter on
"*Hamlet* and *Ulysses* in Rene Girard's *A Theater of Envy* (`Do You Believe
"Your Own Theory?'). I liked the argument, but was surprised by some of the
"claims he makes therein about Joyce scholarship. He discusses Stephen's final
"repudiation of his own theory (`Do you believe your own theory? -No') and
"then says, `As far as I know, all critics of this text regard this *no* as
"final'. Is this true? Are there really, as Girard seems to claim, no other
"critics who have taken Stephen's theory seriously?
 
                       * * * * * * * * * * *
 
My edition of Don Gifford's _Ulysses Annotated_ (Berkeley: U. of CA Press,
1988) gives this information: `The principal sources for the free-wheeling
and largely fictional biography that Stephen performs in this episode are
George Brandes, _William Shakespeare_ (London, 1898), cited as Brandes in the
notes to this episode; Frank Harris, _The Man Shakespeare and His Tragic Life
Story_ (New York, 1909), cited as Harris; and Sidney Lee, _A Life of William
Shakespeare_ (London, 1898), cited as Lee' (p. 192). Gifford also gives
numerous specific references to the episode--his notes are well worth
checking out. Acting strictly from rather fuzzy memory, I believe we do know
from Shakespeare's will about the bequest of the bed, and his son was named
Hamnet, but I believe all the rest is pretty speculative and proto-Freudian.
Hope this helps.
 
Chris Loschen, Brandeis University
Loschen@Brandeis
 
                      * * * * * * * * * * *
 
In response to Susan Harris's queries about Joyce and Shakespeare: Although I
haven't read Girard's chapter, judging from the remark she quotes about
Stephen's negative reply about believing his own theory I would say Girard's
scholarship in this instance is incomplete, to say the least. A review of the
extensive literature on `Scylla and Charybdis' would reveal a range of
responses to the query, including the hypothesis that Stephen, sensing the
obvious skepticism of his listeners, indulges in a defensive lie. A quick
glance at the text shows that Stephen immediately thinks to himself `I
believe, O Lord, help my unbelief' -- surely indicating that no careful
reader could take Stephen's remark at face value without making a supporting
argument. The biographical record also indicates that Joyce probably believed
a good deal of Stephen's theory. In any case, all this has been worked over
by William Schutte, Hugh Kenner, and no doubt many others. Which is not to
say that no more can be said, but that Girard probably didn't bother to do
any research. On Shakespeare's will: an article in the *New York Review of
Books* sometime over the last two years surveys the will and what's known
about it (indeed, he did leave his wife his second best bed), and the
conclusions, I recall, are not inconsistent with Stephen's theory. And so far
as I remember, the meager facts on which Stephen builds his theory (the
marital separation, etc) are accepted as true. There is a long tradition of
biographical speculation about Shakespeare, and Stephen easily could have
read a great deal of it in 1904 in the very library in which he delivers his
theory.
 
Mark Wollaeger, Yale University
MWollae@YaleVM

Latest Re: *Cardenio* MS

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 429.  Wednesday, 14 July 1993.
 
(1)     From:   Peter David Seary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 14 Jul 1993 10:22:03 -0500 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0428  Re: *Cardenio* MS
 
(2)     From:   Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 14 Jul 93 09:52:29 EDT
        Subj:   Cardenio and 2nd Maiden's Tragedy
 
(3)     From:   Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 14 Jul 93 11:04:37 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0428  Re: *Cardenio* MS:51:44 EDT
 
(4)     From:   Ship Shand <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 14 Jul 1993 11:21 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0428  Re: *Cardenio* MS
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter David Seary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 14 Jul 1993 10:22:03 -0500 (EDT)
Subject: 4.0428  Re: *Cardenio* MS
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0428  Re: *Cardenio* MS
 
Does anyone know whether the BL manuscript of *Cardenio* has any signs of
association with Lewis Theobald?  He claimed (and I believe him) to
have had three manuscripts of the play, which he adapted with
considerable success (at the box office) as *Double Falshood; or, the
Distrest Lovers*.  I suppose that discovery of a MS of *Cardenio* goes
some way towards vindicating Theobald against charges (most recently
made by Harriet C. Frazier, *A Babble of Ancestral Voices:
Shakespeare, Cervantes, and Theobald* [The Hague: Mouton, 1974]) that
*Double Falshood* is simply a forgery.  I don't believe that Frazier's
views are seriously entertained, and I accept the arguments put forward
by John Freehafer in "Cardenio, by Shakespeare and Fletcher," PMLA, 84
(1969) and Stephan Kukowski, "The Hand of John Fletcher in *Double
Falshood*," *Shakespeare Survey*, 43 (1991).  For those who may not
know Freehafer's article, his conclusions are as follows:
 
        it appears that Theobald did indeed possess three manuscripts of
        *Cardenio*; that *Cardenio* was written by Shakespeare and Fletcher;
        that it was based on the 1612 Shelton translation of *Don Quixote*;
        that *Cardenio* was cut and perhaps altered during the Restoration
        period, then altered by Theobald; that Theobald's lack of
        forthrightness in dealing with the authorship of the play resulted
        from his patron's erroneous belief that the original play was wholly
        by Shakespeare and his desire to protect his reputation as a
        Shakespeare scholar; and that Theobald probably destroyed no
        manuscripts of *Cardenio*. (p. 513)
 
Incidentally, Brean S. Hammond, "Theobald's *Double Falshood*: An
'Agreeable Cheat'?" *Notes and Queries*, 229 (1984), suggests that one
of Theobald's manuscripts may have survived in the Museum of
Covent-Garden Playhouse until the fire at the theatre on 19 September
1808.  Also, my copy of *Double Falshood* (1728) once belonged to W.W.
Greg, whose MS notes indicate that he thought the play a forgery.  In
holding his view, Greg was probably influenced by David Nichol Smith's
hostile account of Theobald in the Introduction to *Eighteenth Century
Essays on Shakespeare* (first ed., Glasgow: J. MacLehose, 1903; 2nd
ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963).
 
To return to my initial question: does anyone know if the manuscript of
*Cardenio* in the BL has any association with Theobald?
 
Peter Seary
(This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 14 Jul 93 09:52:29 EDT
Subject:        Cardenio and 2nd Maiden's Tragedy
 
My morning paper said that the work Hamilton was arguing for was _The Second
Maiden's Tragedy_ MS in the British Museum.  This has been edited with great
care by Anne Lancashire in the Revels Plays series.
 
What Lancashire tells the reader is that SMT is one of several plays in
Lansdowne MS 807; the others are Francis Jaques's _Queen of Corsica_, Bugbears,
and a fragment of Robert Wild's Benefice.  The title comes from Sir George Buc
who was the Master of the Revels.  In licensing it for acting, he wrote on the
MS, "This second Maydens tagedy (for it hath no name inscribed) may wth the
reformations bee acted publikely.  31. octobr. 1611.   G. Buc."  So the
original had no title nor author at all.
 
Lancashire goes through the authorship question pretty thoroughly, finally
deciding Middleton's the likeliest candidate.  According to her notes, the only
one to make a case for Sh was E. B. Everitt, in _The Young Shakespeare:
Studies in Documentary Evidence_ (1954), which she calls "implausible."
 
Checking the work itself I see no connection to Don Quixote, from which the
name Cardenio comes.  Looks like a dud to me.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 14 Jul 93 11:04:37 EDT
Subject: 4.0428  Re: *Cardenio* MS:51:44 EDT
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0428  Re: *Cardenio* MS:51:44 EDT
 
More on Cardenio and Co.  Jon Callas asks about other apocryphal plays.  In
1653 the play Cardenio "by Mr. Fletcher and Shakespeare" was registered by
Humphrey Moseley; at the same time he entered _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_ as
being by Shakespeare;"Henry ye first and Hen: ye 2d by Shakespeare and
Davenport." In 1660 Moseley enters "The History of King Stephen; Duke Humphrey,
a Tragedy; Iph is & Ianthe or a marriage without a man, a Comedy, by Will.
Shakespeare."
>
Moreover in 1664, seven plays are added to Shakespeare's collected works:
Pericles, Locrine, The First Part of Sir John Oldcastle, Thomas Lord Cromwell,
The London Prodigal, The Puritan, and A Yorkshire Tragedy.  To learn more about
these, check any standard Shakespeare reference book under "Apocrypha."
 
There are lots of other candidates:  Birth of Merlin, Edward III, Arden of
Feversham.  My old edition of Bevington (and it is old--the 1980 one) has an
excellent appendix on these works.  It also reminds me that Lewis Theobald's
play _The Double Falshood or the Distressed Lovers_ is based on (tah dah)
CARDENIO!!  Pre-sumably anyone who wants to track down the Theobald and the
2nd Maiden's Tragedy can find out very quickly indeed if the two are
related--handwriting or not.
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ship Shand <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 14 Jul 1993 11:21 EDT
Subject: 4.0428  Re: *Cardenio* MS
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0428  Re: *Cardenio* MS
 
This morning's paper tells me that Hamilton's *Cardenio* is in fact the
well-known MS of Middleton's *Second Maiden's Tragedy*. Oh well, I guess
we can all go back to the beach.

Re: *Cardenio*; Q: Number of Actors in Sh.'s Company

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 430.  Thursday, 15 July 1993.
 
(1)     From:   Al Cacicedo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 15 Jul 1993 0:14:44 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   RE:  SHK 4.0428, *Cardenio* MS
 
(2)     From:   Katherine West <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 15 Jul 1993 16:01:47 -0500 (EDT)
        Subj:   Acting Companies
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Al Cacicedo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 15 Jul 1993 0:14:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 4.0428, *Cardenio* MS
Comment:        RE:  SHK 4.0428, *Cardenio* MS
 
*The Philadelphia Inquirer* for 14 July (Happy Bastille Day!) reports
that the play identified as *Cardenio* is listed in the BL Catalogue
as *The Second Maid's Tragedy*.  As others have said, we'll have to
stay tuned for further reports.
 
Just a-reading in Reading, PA
 
Al Cacicedo (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)
Albright College
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Katherine West <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 15 Jul 1993 16:01:47 -0500 (EDT)
Subject:        Acting Companies
 
Fellow SHAKSPERIANS:
 
I am trying to finish my first thesis chapter, and I need a quick
answer to the following question:
 
How many actors were in Shakespeare's company, and what was the
average number of actors for an Elizabethan company?
 
A rough number will do - thanks in advance!!
 
Katherine West
U of Toronto

Re: *Cardenio* MS

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 428.  Wednesday, 14 July 1993.
 
(1)     From:   Peter David Seary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 13 Jul 1993 09:28:03 -0500 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0423  More Info on Reported *Cardenio* MS?
 
(2)     From:   John Mucci <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 13 Jul 93 07:36:38-0400
        Subj:   Hamilton & Cardenio
 
(3)     From:   Jon Callas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 13 Jul 93 11:00:45 PDT
        Subj:   Questions on apocryphal plays
 
(4)     From:   Steve Urkowitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 13 Jul 93 21:24:05 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0424  Re: *Cardenio* MS
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter David Seary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 13 Jul 1993 09:28:03 -0500 (EDT)
Subject: 4.0423  More Info on Reported *Cardenio* MS?
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0423  More Info on Reported *Cardenio* MS?
 
Concerning the penmanship of the lost manuscript of Cardenio and
Shakespeare's will--I know the signatures on the will are considered
authentic, but it is news to me the will is Shakespeare's holograph.
Where does this leave Charles Hamilton?  It is quite possible, I
suppose, that the person who wrote out Shakespeare's will might also
have transcribed Cardenio.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Mucci <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 13 Jul 93 07:36:38-0400
Subject:        Hamilton & Cardenio
 
For those of you seeking a little more information on Charles
Hamilton, discoverer of _Cardenio,_ understand that he has been
around for many years as a handwriting expert.  He advertises in
every issue of the *NY Times Book Review* for his autograph and
manuscript business, and he was the celebrated authority who
deemed (and rightly so) that the "Hitler Diaries" were fakes a
number of years ago.  He is also an ardent Shakespeareophile, and
has written a book titled "In Search of Shakespeare, A
Reconnaissance into the Poet's Life and Handwriting," published
by HBJ in 1985. (Among his other works are "Scribblers and
Scoundrels," "The Robot that Helped to Made a President," and
"Great Forgers and Famous Fakes."  The catch is (and this is
related to the comments that _Cardenio_ is "inferior to the
Bard's other works") that in "In Search of Shakespeare" he tells
us that the will of Shaksper of Stratford-on-Avon was holographic
(and it changes appearance halfway through because its author
suffered a massive stroke while writing it--possibly because he
was poisoned, and that possibly through the agency of Richard
Quiney), and we have a great many examples of Shaksper's
handwriting, which includes marginalia in a 1587 edition of
Hollinshed (among other books), the previously suspected
fragments from _Thomas More,_ all the draft applications for the
coat of arms, the also previously-suspected scribbled coversheet
of the "Northumberland MS." and quite possibly the sketch of the
actors in _Titus_ appearing above the passage ascribed to the
penmanship of Henry Peacham. Although his chapters on penmanship,
the secretary hand, and some of the other Elizabethan's habits of
letter writing are fascinating and very entertaining reading, his
thesis is so embroidered with self-indulgent fantasy that it is
all but totally incredible.  An example of the last trait is
Hamilton's penchant for writing out famous Shakespearean
passages, using cutouts of individual letters from the will, and
stringing them together to make it appear as their author must
have originally written them. When he seriously puts forth that
the question now is, "Did Shakespeare write Bacon's Essays?" I
find it has gone off deeper than the deep end.
 
John Mucci
GTE VisNet, Stamford, CT
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jon Callas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 13 Jul 93 11:00:45 PDT
Subject:        Questions on apocryphal plays
 
I've been reading the missives about Cardenio with interest, and forwarding
them along to interested people. A number of us though, have questions about
the apocryphal plays, "Two Noble Kinsmen" and "Woodstock" being ones recently
mentioned. Would someone be good enough to tell us interested lay-people about
those two plays, and other apocyphal ones as well?
 
        Thanks,
        Jon Callas
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Steve Urkowitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 13 Jul 93 21:24:05 EDT
Subject: 4.0424  Re: *Cardenio* MS
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0424  Re: *Cardenio* MS
 
Though Charles Hamilton's speculations get a little hairy IN SEARCH OF
SHAKESPEARE, I believe that I read in a summary of Don Foster's on-going work
on the "rare-word" vocabularies in the plays that the last will and testament
fits right into the complicated trajectories of Shakespeare's word uses (though
we'll have to wait a bit while Don's computer grinds through more text and he
gets into print with the details and the data).  -- ASIDE: my son works for an
agency that has a payroll computer so old, he says, that it's water-powered. --
Anyway, can anyone with magical bibliographical skills tell us all if there are
extant transcriptions or photocopies of this CARDENIO ms? Gary Taylor has been
sending out and getting readings of a quite nice invention of a CARDENIO: my
wife and I attended a reading of the script at the NY Shakespeare Festival
Public Theatre last year.  I guess it was composed on a video screen, but it
bears the marks of Taylor more than Shakespeare (or rather Taylor being
Shakespearean).

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.