1995

Re: Shakespeare Bust

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0536.  Friday, 7 July 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Simon Morgan-Russell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 09:05:49 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust
 
(2)     From:   LaRue Sloan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 9:07:32 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   shakespeare bust
 
(3)     From:   John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 06 Jul 95 16:14:00 BST
        Subj:   SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust
 
(4)     From:   Michael Conner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 08:52:51 +0000 ()
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust
 
(5)     From:   Karin Youngberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 11:17:43 CST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0534  Q: Shakespeare Bust
 
(6)     From:   Peter J. Callahan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 06 Jul 1995 12:53:23 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0534  Q: Shakespeare Bust
 
(7)     From:   Balz Engler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 19:54:28 +0200
        Subj:   SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust
 
(8)     From:   Alan G. Alibozek <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 22:14:23 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Skakespeare Busts
 
(9)     From:   Tom Gilboy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 16:11:47 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust
 
(10)    From:   Gail Burns <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 16:08:14 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Simon Morgan-Russell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 09:05:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust
 
I can't count the number of Shakespeare busts that I've seen in second-hand/
junk stores -- though they're usually priced at more than I would be willing to
pay.  You might be better off trying this market than newer museum shops.
 
I've always fancied having a bust of Jonson to go with my Herford and Simpson,
but I suspect busts of Ben are rarer than hens' teeth.
 
Simon Morgan-Russell
Department of English
Bowling Green State University
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           LaRue Sloan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 9:07:32 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:        shakespeare bust
 
In response to Paul Castillo, Jr.'s query about where to find a bust of
Shakespeare for purchase:  A couple of weeks ago, the gift shop at the Alabama
Shakespeare Festival had several lovely ones of two different varieties. The
Theatre complex there is beautiful, by the way, and well worth the trip.
Current rep shows are 1 Henry VI, shown in conjunction with Shaw's *Saint
Joan*, Much Ado, Night of the Iguana, and The Circle. The number for the ASF
Box Office is 1-800-841-4273. I'm sure they could put you in touch with the
gift shop there in the complex if you'd like to inquire about ordering by mail.
And the new brochures are out for next season--their 25th anniversary.
 
Hope this helps.
A loyal ASF fan.
LaRue Sloan
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 06 Jul 95 16:14:00 BST
Subject: Q: Shakespeare Bust
Comment:        SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust
 
Yes Paul Castillo jnr.
 
If you spend a night or two at the Hilton Hotel in Stratford-upon-Avon they
might place a chocolate bust of Shakespeare on the table before you.  On
sunny days it perspires!
 
One word of warning...don't eat the chocolate!
 
Best wishes,
John Drakakis
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Conner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 08:52:51 +0000 ()
Subject: 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust
 
They have several busts from about 4 inches to ones that are approximately life
sized at the the Tudor Guild gift shop of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival.  I
didn't look at them this year, but I think the prices range from about $25 for
the smallest to $100 for the largest. The shop is nonprofit and returns much of
the money back to the festival to support productions.
 
Address:
            Tudor Guild Gift Shop
            15 South Pioneer St
            Ashland, OR 97250
            (503) 482-0940
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karin Youngberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 11:17:43 CST
Subject: 6.0534  Q: Shakespeare Bust
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0534  Q: Shakespeare Bust
 
The Toscano (I think I've got the spelling right) Gallery in Chicago has
replicas of the Huntington bust--in two different sizes.  They also have a
reproduction (about 16"x20") of the wonderful Folger Library window based on
Jacques' All the World's a Stage speech. I'm sure they have an 800 number which
you can easily get.
 
Karin Youngberg
Augustana College
 
(6)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter J. Callahan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 06 Jul 1995 12:53:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 6.0534  Q: Shakespeare Bust
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0534  Q: Shakespeare Bust
 
Paul,
 
I was at the Folger last year and I saw in the small room in the gift area a
small selection of Bard Busts.  By small I mean about 4" tall.  I remember my
dad having a bust, now in pretty bad shape, but I have no idea where he got it.
I know, no help to you, but at least you know they exsist.
 
Peter J. Callahan
Shepherd College
 
(7)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Balz Engler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 19:54:28 +0200
Subject: Q: Shakespeare Bust
Comment:        SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust
 
There is a shop in Stratford-upon-Avon (on the Market Square) that sells
little Shakespeare busts--made of Welsh coal-
 
Balz Engler
 
(8)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Alan G. Alibozek <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 22:14:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Skakespeare Busts
 
In response to Paul Castillo, Jr.'s search for a bust of the bard:  I know that
the Shakspeare Theater in Washington, D.C. sold busts in the lobby.  The bust
was a small one (maybe 6 inches high), but was inexpensive.  Perhaps someone in
D.C. could check for us?  Hope this helps!
 
Alan G. Alibozek
Department of English
West Virginia University
email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(9)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Gilboy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 16:11:47 -0400
Subject: 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust
 
Paul Castillo writes:
 
>When we were at the Folger Library in Washington, D. C.,
>I don't believe they had any Shakespeare busts as well.
>Anyone know of a place where we can find a bust of
>the bard?
 
My wife ordered a Shakespeare bust from the Folger Library two years ago, a
dark aged-bronze-look piece about eight or ten inches high. A definite sense
of earthiness to it; I like it. She says Folger also offered a small statue.
 
Tom Gilboy
 
(10)---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gail Burns <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 16:08:14 -0400
Subject: 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust
 
No busts here, but I know where you can get a really nice pillow of the Bard's
bust (if that makes sense.)  Let me know if you're interested and I'll stop by
the store and get the particulars (price, who made it, etc.)
 
Gail Burns
GailMBurns@ aol.com

*Othello* Film and Question

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0535.  Thursday, 6 July 1995.
 
From:           Robert Appelbaum <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 5 Jul 1995 22:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:        Othello
 
So now it's official, according to today's paper.  Branaugh is Iago, for 11
million dollars, and Fishburne is Othello, probably for less.
 
I have not had the opportunity to see many performances of *Othello*, but I
have seen performances where the part of Othello was played strongly, and
performances where Iago was given a strong performance.  And I don't think I
have ever seen a performance where Othello and Iago were played equally
strongly.  Is that normal?  Is this play one person's story or another's, but
not both's?  Is that a director's decision, or an accident of talent?  Can two
equally strong actors and the right director remedy the problem?  Or is my own
limited experience creating a problem where none really exists?
 
I'd like to hear from some real theatergoers (and actors and directors) about
this.
 
        --Robert Appelbaum

SHAXICON

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0533.  Thursday, 6 July 1995.
 
From:           Don Foster <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 04 Jul 1995 11:40:16 +0100
Subject:        Re: SHAXICON
 
To all of you good folks out there who have inquired lately about SHAXICON and
its availability, and about the roles that Shakespeare may have played:
 
Caveat: This will be a long post, but I'm trying to answer loads of queries in
one swoop (or, as Pogo used to say, "in one fell soup"):
 
First, what is it?  SHAXICON is a lexical database that indexes all of the
words that appear in the canonical plays 12 times or less, including a
line-citation and speaking character for each occurrence of each word. (These
are called "rare words," though they are not rare in any absolute
sense--"family [n.]" and "real [ad.]" are rare words in Shakespeare.) All
rare-word variants are indexed as well, including the entire "bad" quartos of
H5, 2H6, 3H6, Ham, Shr, and Wiv; also the nondramatic works, canonical and
otherwise (Ven, Luc, PP, PhT, Son, LC, FE, the Will, "Shall I die," et. al.);
the additions to Mucedorus and The Spanish Tragedy, the Prologue to Merry Devil
of Edmonton, all of Edward III and Sir Thomas More (hands S and D); Ben
Jonson's Every Man in His Humour (both Q1 and F1) and Sejanus (F1); and more;
but these other texts have no effect on the 12-occurrence cutoff that sets the
parameters for SHAXICON's lexical universe.
 
What SHAXICON demonstrates is that the rare-words in Shakespearean texts are
not randomly distributed either diachronically or synchronically, but are
"mnemonically structured."  Shakespeare's active lexicon as a writer was
systematically influenced by his reading, and by his apparent activities as a
stage-player.  When writing, Shakespeare was measurably influenced by plays
then in production, and by particular stage-roles most of all.  Most
significant is that, while writing, he disproportionately "remembers" the
rare-word lexicon of plays concurrently "in repertory"; and from these plays he
always registers disproportionate lexical recall (as a writer) of just one role
(or two or three smaller roles); and these remembered roles, it can now be
shown, are most probably those that Shakespeare himself drilled in stage
performance.
 
SHAXICON electronically maps Shakespeare's language so that we can now usually
tell which texts influence which other texts, and when. Moreover, when collated
with the OED or with early modern texts in a normalized machine-readable
format, SHAXICON provides an incomplete record of Shakespeare's apparent
reading.  The main value of this resource has less to do with biographical
novelties, however, than with problems of textual transmission, dating,
probable authorship of revisions, early stage history, and the like.  And
because SHAXICON is a closed system, human bias in measuring lexical influence
of this sort is effectively eliminated.  The evidentiary value of supposed
"verbal parallels" is no longer a matter of private intuition or subjective
judgment, but quantifiable, using a stable lexical index (and measurable
against a virtually limitless cross-sample of machine-readble texts).
 
In 1991, I published a 3-part report in SNL about SHAXICON (the database was
not then completed, and not yet dubbed), in which I made (in a few cases,
mistaken) projections concerning Shakespeare's apparent stage roles (based on
entries for about a third of the final lexical sample). The few botched
projections derived in part from key-punching errors--e.g., "Pand" (Pandarus of
TRO) was often being entered for "CPan" (Pandulph of JN), and "QnElz" (R3) for
QnEliz (3H6); and in part from unavoidable limitations, explained in the SNL
series, concerning the variable "richness" of character-specific lexicons,
which could not be measured until the whole canon was indexed. These problems
have been eliminated.
 
The following list represents a corrected catalogue of those roles that
Shakespeare is most likely to have acted.  These assignments vary somewhat in
statistical significance, depending on sample size, etc.  A fuller report (with
instructions on how to run cross-checks and fully automated statistical
analysis) will appear in my "SHAXICON Notebook" (a written commentary that has
yet to be completed).  In the meantime, here follows a list of Shakespeare's
most likely stage-roles, as statistically derived.  Keep in mind that this
catalogue cannot be proven to represent historical actuality.  SHAXICON handily
selects Adam of AYL and the Ghost of Ham as probable Shakespeare roles, both of
which are supported by hearsay evidence from the 17th century; the remaining
roles find no external historical confirmation (although Davies mentions that
Shakespeare played some kings, and SHAXICON indicates that Shakespeare played
king-roles in AWW, 1H4, 2H4, HAM, LLL, PER, and probably MAC).  Having studied
the evidence from every conceivable angle, I'd say that the assignments below
are good bets, even despite the lack of archival evidence to back them up, for
the disproportion in Shakespeare's persistent recall of these roles is quite
striking relative to other roles in the corresponding texts. There are a few
texts (principally ADO, MV, and Jonson's EMI) in which Shakespeare may have
played two different roles in two successive seasons of the same theatrical
"run." But the statistical weight of Shakespeare's selective recall of
particular roles is in most instances pretty clear;  in fact, when multiple
roles are identified by SHAXICON as probably Shakespearean, they are in most
instances roles that are easily doubled (exceptions and problems are are noted
below).
 
MOST PROBABLE SHAKESPEARE ROLES, BASED ON THE POET'S PERSISTENT AND MEASURABLE
RECALL OF PARTICULAR CHARACTER-SPECIFIC LEXICONS:
 
ADO:  Leonato; later switching to Friar (Q version registers higher lexical
recall for Leonato, F1 version higher for Friar.  Could be viewed as a problem,
since the same actor cannot have played both roles simultaneously, yet
Shakespeare clearly "remembers" both roles (unlike all other principal parts in
ADO, which he "forgets").
 
ANT:  Agrippa, Philo, Proculeius, Thidias, and Ventidius, probably
simultaneously [!] (thus requiring some accommodation at 3.2.1 for Vntd/Agri),
and probably with Proculeius taking Agrippa's lines in 5.1 (hence the textual
crux recently discussed on SHAKSPER).
 
AWW:  King of France
 
AYL:  Adam; adding old Corin the Shepherd in two revivals of AYL.
 
COR:  Shakespeare role uncertain. Highest relative post-COR lexical "influence"
comes from Sicinius, but Sicinius-"influence" is tepid relative to the the
whopping excess in lexical recall that obtains for the designated Shakspeare
roles in most other plays.
 
CYM:  1.Gent (I.i), Philario (I.iv, II.iv), and Jupiter (V.iv)
 
EMI-F (Jonson): Very complicated. Looks as if F1 may represent a major
Elizabethan revision of Q1, followed by a minor Jacobean revision (as per
established textual scholarship on EMI).  SHAXICON confirms that Shakespeare
probably knew the play in performance: in 1598, and again in 1604, words from
EMI come pouring into Shakespeare's writing, forming very distinct peaks of
lexical influence just when we know that EMI was, indeed, acted by the King's
Men (and again in 1612-13).  But lexical influence by character (entirely
independent of general lexical overlap) gives mixed signals: Shakespeare has
extraordinarily high recall of two roles that cannot have been performed
simultaneously by the same player: Old Lorenzo-Knowell (esp. the F1 Old
Knowell), and Judge Clement (esp. the Q1 Clement); and indeed, these two roles
seem to alternate in their peaks of lexical "influence" on Shakespeare's
writing, which suggests that he may have alternated roles. (But Shakespearean
texts have also an irregularly high overlap with the Thorello-Kitely role both
before AND after 1598, which cannot be explained, except as a statistical
aberration.)
 
ERR:  Egeon  (I.i, V.i) and Dr. Pinch (IV.iv).
 
1H4:  King Henry.
 
2H4:  King Henry (and perhaps Rumor, but only briefly).
 
H5:   Complicated:  It looks as if Shakespeare played the French Messenger and
Exeter in the "bad"-Q version (in 1599, while also playing Exeter in a revival
of 1H6); in H5-F1, Shakespeare appears to have performed Bishop Ely and
Montjoy.  But it looks also as if Shakespeare may sometimes have performed the
Chorus (less strongly marked, but still pronounced in its lexical influence on
late Shakespearean texts relative to other roles in the play).  The Chorus-role
is easily doubled with Montjoy--but tripling with Ely raises a problem at
I.i.0, when the Chorus walks offstage and Ely walks on.
 
1H6:  Exeter (in I.i, III.i, IV.i, V.i) and probably Mortimer (II.iv) in first
run and again in 1599; switching to Bedford in 1600 ff. after slight revisions,
principally in I.i.  A problem: the same actor cannot easily play both Exeter
and Mortimer in the F1 version, given the Exeter entrance at III.i.0 following
the Mortimer exit at II.iv.212; so if SHAXICON's Exeter/Mortimer data are
correct, there has either been some material cut betweeen II.iv and III.i, or
else Shakespeare was one fast dude when changing his duds (switching from a
dead Mortimer to a living Exeter in just 8 lines).
 
2H6:  Suffolk (also Suffolk in the "bad" 2H6-Q, which appears certainly to
antedate the F1 version, as has been argued by Steve Urkowitz).
 
3H6   Warwick (Old Clifford in the "bad" 3H6-Q, which appears certainly to
antedate F1 version, as has been argued by Steve Urkowitz).
 
H8:   Prologue and 1.Gentleman; or none (statistically uncertain, due to
insufficient post-H8 lexical sample).
 
HAM:  Ghost, 1.Player, Mess-Gent. of 4.5 (and perhaps also role in the
Mousetrap, most probably Lucianus; and probably not, as per SNL, the
player-king); Mess-Gent partly folded into Horatio role in F1 version.
 
JC:   Shakespeare role(s) a little uncertain, due to apparent revision and
shortening.  Most probably, Decius; and, somewhat less probably, Flavius.
 
Note: Decius-Flavius doubling is not possible in the F1 version unless F1 has
been shortened from an earlier version.  In F1, at I.ii.0, Flavius and Decius
enter as mutes; but the very text of JC I.ii offers some evidence that the text
has, indeed, been shortened at this point (e.g., in the same scene, at
I.ii.285, Casca reports that "Murellus and Flavius, for pulling scarfs off
Caesar's images, are put to silence"; but, if we may believe the F1 stage
direction at I.ii.0, Casca was on stage with Murellus and Flavius moments
earlier--from I.ii.0 to at least I.ii.214--and Casca hasn't heard boo about
Caesar's images in the interim). SHAXICON thus seems to confirm the view that
JC-F1 is a shortened text (albeit with some added bits (e.g., the second
account of Portia's death, which are indexed in SHAXICON under JC-b).  I am
inclined to accept the assignments of both Decius and Flavius to Shakespeare,
but there is room for doubt.
 
JN:   Cardinal Pandulph.
 
LLL:  Ferdinand (possibly with one brief stint as Boyet).
 
LR:   Albany. The Albany role reduced in (revised) F1 version, one of several
designated Shakespeare roles that appears to have been cut or reduced ca. 1612;
doubtful that Albany was subsequently performed by Shakespeare.
 
MAC: Shakespeare's most probable roles in this equivocating play are Duncan,
Lord, and Scots Doctor, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it, for the evidence is
itself equivocal.  That MAC was revised ca. 1612 seems altogether likely from
the evidence of SHAXICON (principally in I.v.1-30,. I.v.71-3, IV.iii all, and
V.ix.1-19; the Hecate material is independently indexed under MAC-c--III.v all;
IV.i.39-43, IV.i.125-32, date and provenance unclear). Simon Forman's
eye-witness account of MAC as acted in 1611 suggests that the ur-MAC had a
larger Duncan-role than in the F1 version. And it has recently been argued on
SHAKSPER that there was an Elizabethan MAC on which the 1606 version was based;
I find these theories of revision attractive, and wish that someone would prove
them true, since taken together they would provide a satisfactory explanation
for the irregularities in the SHAXICON data for MAC.
 
MM:   Escalus.
 
MND:  prob. Theseus, but with very irregular figures, enormously high
Theseus-"influence" on the post-1594 poems, rather slight Thesus-"influence" on
the post-1594 plays (though still higher than for other MND characters).
 
MV:   Somewhat conflicted results:  almost certainly Antonio in all
productions; but Morocco is a second "remembered" role, especially as manifest
in the lexicon of the post-1594 poems and in the 1595-6 plays. Morocco tends to
register its strongest influence on Shakespeare's writing when Antonio doesn't,
and vice versa. No other role in the play comes close to these two parts in
lexical "influence" upon the poet's post-MV writing. Perhaps Shakespeare
alternated roles; he cannot easily have played both simultaneously, at least
not in the Q1 or F1 text.
 
OTH:  Brabantio.  The Brabantio role is reduced in the (acc. to SHAXICON,
revised) Q1 version; SHAXICON identifies a final "run" of OTH (1611-13), but it
is doubtful that Brabantio was performed by Shakespeare later than 1612.
 
PER:  SHAXICON suggests that PER is a very early play (ur-PER), the palimpsest
of which is imperfectly represented by acts I-II of PER-Q. PER was clearly
revised in 1607 by Shakespeare (new or greatly re-written acts III-V). SHAXICON
offers no support for the view of the Oxford editors that PER-Q represents a
Wilkins-Shakespeare collaboration, yet it leaves open such a possibility
insofar as Wilkins could be shown to have tinkered some with acts I-II while
Shakespeare was rewriting all of acts III-V. (This could be tested by indexing
other texts by Wilkins.) Shakespeare appears to have acted both Antiochus and
(at least when doubling was needed) Simonides, and he may have performed or
read Gower's part from time to time, most notably ca. 1608/9 (cf. notes on
H5-F1, another script for which Shakespeare registers sporadically high recall
of the chorus-role, especially ca. 1608/9--perhaps the company was short-handed
in that year). Shakespeare probably performed Antiochus and Simonides both
before and after the 1607 revision, without taking on any wholly new or
additonal role after the new acts (III-V) replaced those in the the ur-PER.
 
R2:   Gaunt (in I.i - I.iii, II.i), the Gardener (III.iv), the Lord (IV.i), and
probably also the Groom (V.v).  Troublesome dating: SHAXICON seems to indicate
that R2 derives from an earlier play, and that R2 was revised immediately after
1H4 (but prior to publication of R2-Q1).  This finding is at odds with all past
textual scholarship on the play, which has been nearly unanimous in viewing R2
as a text begun and completed ca. 1595.
 
R3:   Clarence (in I.i, I.iv, and V.iii) and Scrivener (III.vi). Possibly also
Third Citizen (II.iii) in a late revival.
 
ROM:  Chorus and Friar Lawrence (Chorus-role omitted in late revival, as per
F1).
 
SEJ (Jonson):  Macro (I.i, II.iii, III.i, IV.ii); probably also (but less
well-marked) Sabinius (I.i, II.iii, III.i, IV.iii), with some accomodation for
a costume change after IV.ii (but Jonson reports in F1 that he has revised
Sejanus, which means that this problem at IV.iii.0 may not actually have come
up in the performed text).
 
SHR:  Lord, and perhaps also Pedant.
 
TGV:  Duke.
 
TIM:  Poet in TIM-a (representing ur-F1 version, the parts of TIM-F1
customarily ascribed to Shakespeare); no role apparent in TIM-b (widely
supposed to represent Middleton or late-Shakespearean revision; SHAXICON
suggests that  TIM-F1 is a late, unfinished revision (ca. 1613) of a play first
acted in 1601.  TIM-F1 appears not to be a collaborative text per se.
 
TIT:  probably but not certainly Aaron (a role uncharacteristic of Shakespeare
and less strongly marked statistically than most other roles identified in this
catalogue).
 
TMP:  no Shakespeare role apparent
 
TNK:  no Shakespeare role apparent; insufficent post-TNK sample.
 
TNT:  Antonio (later adding Valentine [I.i]).
 
TRO:  perhaps none until 1609; then, Ulysses (a role that seems out of keeping
with the others designated by SHAXICON)
 
WIV:  In WIV-F1, Ford, but only in two evidently brief runs. The Host in WIV-Q
(which, though a "bad" quarto, appears certainly to antedate the F1 version).
 
WT:   Archidamus (I.i), Antigonus (II.i, II.iii, III.iii), and 3rd Gentleman
(V.i).
 
 
WHAT DO YOU NEED TO USE SHAXICON:
 
1. Patience.
 
2. Disk space. In its present form, SHAXICON sucks up 40+ megs just for the raw
data, plus another 20 megs or so for the commentary, help files, and graphics;
plus another 20 megs or so for the software.  But don't start erasing those
electronic games just yet in order to make room for it. The main database for
SHAXICON is now complete, purged of errors, and generally usable; but it's not
yet ready for prime time: SHAXICON now runs on ETC Word-Cruncher, which is
limited in its capabilities and requires way-too-much manual labor (keying in
lexical searches, etc.).  We're now using Excel for the summary figures and
graphics, which is a big time-saver--but we're likely to change over, prior to
publication, to a slicker and more fully automated database-management system
so that SHAXICON is more user-friendly in ALL respects.  I'm inquiring after
Oracle, 4D, and Fox.  If anyone out there has suggestions, I'd be obliged to
hear them.
 
In advance of publication we're drawing on the expertise of people in various
fields so that when it's finally distributed SHAXICON will be fully
intelligible even to those users without expertise in computers, statistics,
and/or textual scholarship.  I'm shooting for 1996 publication, but cannot
guess what technical problems may arise in the interim.  CD-rom may be too slow
to be practicable, but disk-space may otherwise be a problem for many users.
 
I am eager to familiarize other scholars with SHAXICON, and will be available
next year to give a talk or seminar if there are interested parties in your
department. Next week I'll be in Santa Barbara, where I'll be presenting
SHAXICON at the ACH/ALLC conference.  Hope to see you there.
 
Thanks for your interest.
Don Foster

Q: Shakespeare Bust

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0534.  Thursday, 6 July 1995.
 
From:           Paul Castillo, Jr. <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 4 Jul 1995 18:49:44 -0400
Subject:        Shakespeare bust
 
Hello:
 
After reading the mail about ShakesBEAR, it brought to mind my fiancee's quest
to find a Shakespeare bust.  There is a bust of Shakespeare on a pedestal at
the Huntington Library in San Marino, CA, but they don't sell busts of him in
their gift store.  When we were at the Folger Library in Washington, D. C., I
don't believe they had any Shakespeare busts as well.  Anyone know of a place
where we can find a bust of the bard?
 
Thanks,
Paul Castillo, Jr.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: Weimann's Locus and Platea

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0532.  Thursday, 6 July 1995.
 
(1)     From:   John Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 04 Jul 1995 10:59:09 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0530  Re: Weimann's Locus and Platea
 
(2)     From:   Peter S. Donaldson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 04 Jul 95 13:16:15
        Subj:   Re:SHK 6.0526  Re: Weimann, locus and platea
 
(3)     From:   Skip Shand <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 05 Jul 1995 11:39:39 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0526  Re: Weimann
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 04 Jul 1995 10:59:09 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 6.0530  Re: Weimann's Locus and Platea
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0530  Re: Weimann's Locus and Platea
 
Dave Reinheimer is right that Weimann borrows the terminology of locus and
platea from early English religious drama, particularly *The Castle of
Perseverance*.  But Weimann has his own theory about the terms, and he carries
the theory over from religious drama to its successor on the London commercial
stage.  I'm working from memory here, not from the book, but I believe Weimann
suggests that the locus is not only theatrically but socially elevated: it's
the place where high society types are represented.  Its counterpart in the
commercial theater is the upstage area, thrones, etc.  The platea is the fluid
space surrounding the loci, and it is distinguished not only by being
physically lower but socially lower--the place of peasants, commoners, devils,
and vices, who are more apt to engage in direct address to the audience and are
therefore closer socially as well as theatrically to commoners in the audience.
 The commercial counterpart in London theater is downstage, which is also
theatrically and socially closer to the "groundlings."  It's a fruitful
insight, but exceptions to the general theory are so many as to make the theory
itself questionable.  For careful and painstaking elaboration of some of the
theory's problems, see the book by Hans Jurgen Diller that I mentioend earlier.
 
John Cox
Hope College
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter S. Donaldson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 04 Jul 95 13:16:15
Subject: Re: Weimann, locus and platea
Comment:        Re:SHK 6.0526  Re: Weimann, locus and platea
 
Well, here's a half remembered version of Weimann's locus and platea -- when
the weekend is over we can check out the book.
 
Weimann claims that the 16th century English stage inherits a kind of
doubleness from its medieval ancestry. Locus, the sacred "place" of medieval
drama  (Bethlehem or Jerusalem) translates spatially as the upstage area of the
Elizabethan stage.  Here the actors are more likely to inhabit their roles as
historical or fictional characters, and less as performers.  This is the space
of history, of representational closure, of theatrical and social decorum.
Platea -- roughly downstage -- is the margin of representation, where direct
audience address is common, where decorum (theatrical and social) is less
strict, and where the players are seen, or tend to be seen as performers, and
even, occasionally, as their real life (RL) selves.  This margin might, in
medieval drama, be the edge of the cleared space in a town center at which
audience and spectacle met.  At that margin, the role of a player within the
drama might merge with the actualities of the performance -- e.g. those who
played the Roman soldiers at the crucifixion might be those (larger) members of
the company who actually cleared and controlled the crowd.  Weimann's
distinction is also, roughly, a class distinction.  I've found all this very
useful, though I don't know if it holds water for the Medieval period, or, if
it does, whether the argument concerning the continuity of Elizabethan practice
with Medieval can be made convincing.  Perhaps Weimann's insight is not much
different from S.L. Bethell's "dual consciousness" of actor and role.  Weimann
attempts to historicize this notion, and to make it the basis of a theory of
double representation, and, in a later article (SQ 1991?) of "bifold authority"
on the Elizabethan stage.
 
Before Weimann, Olivier portrayed theatrical practice at the Globe in very
similar terms in his Henry V film, where, as I have argued, the locus/platea
distinction is mapped onto the relationship between film and theater.  One
distinction between the relatively indecorous theatrical space and the
solemnities of filmed epic is, for Olivier, the use of transvestite boys in
women's roles.  For the scenes in "France" he uses "real" actresses.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Skip Shand <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 05 Jul 1995 11:39:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 6.0526  Re: Weimann
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0526  Re: Weimann
 
Michael Mooney has a very accessible applied take on Weimann's stuff in his
*Shakespeare's Dramatic Transactions* (Duke, 1990). The book presents
Weimann-based studies of R3, R2, Hamlet, Othello, Lear, Macbeth and A&C. It
does not, obviously, venture into a critique of Weimann.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.