1996

Qs: American Festival Theatre; John Porter

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0131.  Tuesday, 20 February 1996.

(1)     From:   Jodi Clark <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Feb 1996 10:48:35 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   The American Festival Theatre

(2)     From:   Ron Shields <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Feb 1996 12:42:39 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   John Porter


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jodi Clark <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Feb 1996 10:48:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        The American Festival Theatre

I was wondering if anyone had heard any of the details in regards to the
reopening of the American Festival Theatre in Stratford, CT.  As far as I know,
a Mr. Louis Burke is in charge and plans to have a season this soummer outdoors
while the theatre is being renovated.  James Earl Jones expressed interest in
performing in a production of Twelfth Night (as Malvolio?)

If anyone know of how to get in touch with any of the people involved with this
renovation or if they are in the process of hiring people, please let me know.

Thanks,
Jodi Clark
Marlboro College

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ron Shields <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Feb 1996 12:42:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        John Porter

I researching the life and brief public reading career of John Porter.  He read
from the Great Bible at St. Paul's in London during the early 1540's. His
murder is described in Fox's Book of Martyrs.  Where can I gather solid
biographical information, accounts of his reported murder, and first-hand
accounts of his scripture reading?

Please reply directly: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Ron Shields
Associate Professor and Chair
Theatre
Bowling Green State University

Re: Funeral Elegy

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0130.  Tuesday, 20 February 1996.

(1)     From:   Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Feb 1996 12:16:42 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0127  Re: Funeral Elegy

(2)     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Feb 1996 22:00:06 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0127 Re: Funeral Elegy

(3)     From:   David Joseph Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Feb 1996 21:29:28 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0127  Re: Funeral Elegy


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Feb 1996 12:16:42 -0800
Subject: 7.0127  Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0127  Re: Funeral Elegy

Maybe that guy Coville, or whatever his name is, wrote Primary Colors.  I mean
Clinton's campaign manager.

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Feb 1996 22:00:06 +0000
Subject: 7.0127 Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0127 Re: Funeral Elegy

If I understand SHAXICON correctly, Foster uses the evidence of rare-word
occurrence to calculate the likelihood that a given set of texts is by a single
author.

Funeral Elegy has stylistic features that are demonstrably unlike late
Shakespearean verse. There are 67 lines with feminine endings in the Elegy,
which works out at about 11.5 per cent of the poem. The average for verse in
the late Shakespearean plays is about 30 per cent, I believe.

How are we to weigh evidence derived from rare-word usage with evidence derived
from feminine ending usage?

Gabriel Egan

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Joseph Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Feb 1996 21:29:28 +0100
Subject: 7.0127  Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0127  Re: Funeral Elegy

I don't have much to add to the latest set of postings on the Funeral Elegy;
we've all pretty much said our piece for now, though this certainly won't be
the last word on the subject.  A few observations, though.

Stephanie Hughes finds the Elegy lacking in the passion of even Shakespeare's
worst poetry; that's obviously a subjective judgement, on which people can and
will differ.  She also says that "Many lines don't scan.  Show me one thing we
know to be Shakespeare's that doesn't scan."  Actually, the scansion of the
elegy, and its prosody in general, is very similar to Shakespeare's, as Don
Foster shows on pp. 82-89 of his book.  "W.S. is a skilled metrician. His elegy
contains few irregular lines, and of these, none can be described as
unfortunate.  There are in the Elegy only two lines with an extra foot (122,
309), both of which are commensurate with Shakespeare's practice.  For example,
the elegist, in compiling a list of seventeen virtues that adorned William
Peter, inserts in his iambic verse a single line of hexameter (122), as does
Shakespeare in Timon's list of seventeen social goods (Tim. 4.1.15-21).  In
both cases the irregular line helps to vary the rhythm, breaking up the
potential monotony of a list." (*Elegy by W.S., p.88-89).

Richard Kennedy says that "I haven't heard that Chapman was a chum of Prince
Henry, or even knew the man."  Actually, Prince Henry was Chapman's patron, so
I would guess they had at least met; the printed dedication (to Henry Jones) of
Chapman's elegy begins, "The most unvaluable and dismayful loss of my most dear
and heroical Patron, Prince Henry, hath so stricken all my spirits to the
earth, that I will never more dare to look up to any greatness; but resolving
the little rest of my poor life to obscurity, and the shadow of his death,
prepare ever hereafter for the light of Heaven."

Both Hughes and Kennedy are perfectly within their rights not to believe that
Shakespeare wrote this poem, though we've only covered a tiny sliver of the
relevant arguments in this discussion.  Many people, and certainly not just
Oxfordians, find it very hard to imagine Shakespeare writing this piece of
relatively lame verse; Hughes and Kennedy have both ably expressed this
skeptical view.  However, I do think the Elegy and the arguments for ascribing
it to Shakespeare both deserve a closer look than many people have been giving
them, and that's what I've tried to do in this discussion. If we're going to
discuss the Elegy intelligently, we should at least have a decent idea of the
historical and literary context in which it was written, as well as the actual
nature of the arguments in its behalf (as opposed to watered-down newspaper
accounts).

As for Bill Godshalk:  his scenario for the publication of FE sounds as
reasonable as any other, though we need to be careful to keep our arguments
separate.  Whether or not Thorpe expected to make any money off FE doesn't
necessarily have anything to do with how he got the manuscript; I could easily
imagine a scenario where W.S. came to Thorpe with the manuscript, and Thorpe
published it as a normal money-making venture.  If W.S. was recognized (in at
least some circles) as William Shakespeare, that would be an obvious selling
point.  In any case, I think it's a good bet that Thorpe came by the manuscript
directly from the author.  Katherine Duncan-Jones has argued pretty
convincingly that Thorpe has gotten a bum rap from scholars and was actually a
very conscientious stationer:  most of the texts he worked from were very good
ones; in many cases there is evidence of authorial corrections during the press
run, and/or other evidence of direct approval of the publication by the author;
the same authors kept coming back to Thorpe.  Thorpe may not have been a "major
player" in terms of number of publications, but he was more significant in
terms of the quality of his publications.  I agree that we need to ground our
speculation in the best evidence we have; I think the best evidence indicates
that Thorpe probably got the manuscript of the Elegy directly from the author,
though whether the publication was private is a separate and less clear issue.

Dave Kathman
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Q: Shakespearean Semiotics; Re: ACT's "The Tempest"

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0128.  Monday, 19 February 1996.

(1)     From:   Carmel Sammut <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Feb 1996 09:56:27 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Shakespearean Semiotics

(2)     From:   Katy Dickinson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Feb 1996 10:01:11 -0800
        Subj:   ACT's "The Tempest"


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carmel Sammut <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 Feb 1996 09:56:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject:        Shakespearean Semiotics

Can anybody direct me to any studies done with regards Shakespeare and
semiology, especially with regards Macbeth? I have managed to come across only
a handful and am greatly interested to read more literature with this regards.

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Katy Dickinson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 Feb 1996 10:01:11 -0800
Subject:        ACT's "The Tempest"

No, this is not a movie, it is a real-live stage play running in San Francisco
at the American Conservatory Theater's newly-reopened Geary Theater.  It is
only running until 2/18 and tickets are scarce. However, I saw it this week and
it is worth the trouble of tickets and travel.   The staging is innovative and
mostly effective, Miranda is superb (the best enactment for this part I have
ever seen), Prospero is unusually human, and Ariel is excellent.  Call
415-749-2ACT for information.

Usually Miranda and Ferdinand (the love match for which Prospero arranged the
tempest) seem so sappy and empty that their scenes have only slightly more to
recommend them than does intermission.  In this ACT production, Miranda
actually seemed to me to be more a person.  Her extreme enthusiasm after her
first look at a man other than her Father and the bestial Caliban was charming.

Another review of this production may be found in
        http://www.shakespeare.com/

Of course, the play itself may be found in:
        http://the-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/works.html

Katy Dickinson (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Character

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0129.  Tuesday, 20 February 1996.

(1)     From:   Rick Kincaid <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Feb 1996 10:44:41
        Subj:   Hamlet & Ophelia

(2)     From:   David Lucking <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Feb 1996 19:27:11 +-100
        Subj:   To count or not to count?

(3)     From:   Porter Jamison <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Feb 1996 18:34:18 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0125  Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Character


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Rick Kincaid <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Feb 1996 10:44:41
Subject:        Hamlet & Ophelia

A friend of mine had this very same discusion with the British actress Rose
Marie Harris this summer while attending BADA (actually it was at a pub after
classes). Not only had they been having intercourse, Ms. Harris contends, but
Ophelia was pregnant by Hamlet. He knows this or figures it out during their
scene together while the King and Polonius are listening, which gives "get thee
to a nunnery" all the more meaning. AND, if Gertrude knows this, it makes her
"There is a willow grows aslant..." more than just a flowery speech (pun
intended), since the flowers mentioned were commonly used in Medieval speech
when refering to fertility.

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Lucking <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Feb 1996 19:27:11 +-100
Subject:        To count or not to count?

To count or not to count?

In response to a recent thread in which speculation concerning Hamlet's sexual
activities has alternated with reminders that such conjectures belong to the
same category as counting Lady Macbeth's fictive children, I offer the
following observations for what they are worth.

In an even more obvious way than other literary forms, drama is a medium in
which the prescription that invisible children are not to be counted can only
be applied up to a certain point. Even if the academic critic can hypnotize
himself into thinking that one should never go outside the text in speaking
about character, no one who actually performs or directs a play can operate on
such a premise. The moment the actor playing a character dresses himself in a
particular way, the moment he grimaces here or smiles there, the moment he
leaves a significant pause in his delivery or lays the stress on this word
rather than that -- the moment he acts, in a word -- he is going outside the
text. Shakespeare does not tell us where significant pauses or word stresses or
grimaces or smiles should come. Actors or directors construct characters on the
basis of the textual information that is available to them, and act (or direct
action) in a manner consistent with those characters. We as spectators judge
that performance, among other things, on the basis of its consonance with the
text, but also on the basis of our knowledge of human conduct, which is
technically extrinsic to the text. We might talk about verisimiltude, or
plausibility, or something else, but it is character we are speaking about all
the same. Are we to say, then, that the actor's approach to the character,
because it goes outside the text, is wholly non-critical? The academic critic
might well say so, but perhaps by denying a continuity between his activity and
those other cultural activities which are some way affined to his own, he is
doing no more than sawing off the branch he is sitting on. Furthermore, even
the purist critic might experience a certain difficulty in separating the
textual character (that is, the sum total of speeches assigned to a given
personage) from the composite image of that character he forms in his mind as
he reads the work, an image which is necessarily going to be "more" than what
Shakespeare put into the play. This, of course, quite aside from the fact that
even the purest of purists has been exposed to non-textual influences
(theatrical performances, films, early conditioning by schoolteachers who read
Bradley in their spare time, etc.) which have doubtless conditioned his view of
the characters and hence his reading of the text. The problem is complicated by
the fact that the editors who establish the texts on which actors and critics
and general readers perform their respective operations also apply criteria
which may include their sense of the characters in the play and what is
consistent with those characters. There is a respect, in other words, in which
the text is a function of "character" and not vice versa.

What the actor does explicitly, the responsive spectator or reader does
implicitly. He is constantly adding to what the play explicitly supplies.
Criteria of psychological plausibility, and even of moral acceptability, are
criteria we apply instinctively, and they become critical judgements even if
they don't have their origin in formal critical positions or their immediate
sanction in the text. To cite an instance almost at random, how are we supposed
to respond to Valentine's willingness in "Two Gentlemen" to hand over the woman
he claims he loves to the man who has just attempted to rape her? The text is
absolutely deadpan, and leaves it to us to make what sense of it that we can.
And the only way we can make sense of the episode is to invoke something
"outside" the text, whether this be the Renaissance topos of friendship versus
love, the passive function assigned to women in in the cementing of homosocial
bonds, the question of elementary decency in dealing with another human being,
or whatever. And why not character? The moment we ask ourselves whether it is
"probable" that a normal red-blooded individual would act like Valentine, we
are implicitly invoking the issue of character. And the same issue is invoked
whenever we ask those questions which it is difficult not to ask in reading
Shakespeare's plays -- Why is Othello is so vulnerable to Iago's insinuations?
Is Katherina being ironical at the end of "The Taming of the Shrew"? Is
Coriolanus's rejection of praise sincere? Why does Lear fail to perceive the
devotion of Cordelia until it is too late? And so on.

The problem is, how far is it legitimate to go in looking beyond what is
strictly in the text for answers to questions that are raised within it? One
answer, possibly, is that one can go as far as one likes as long as it is the
text itself that remains the primary point of reference. It may seem absurd to
ask how many children Lady Macbeth had, but one can imagine circumstances in
which even this question might not seem quite so ridiculous as it is
represented as being: this is a play, after all, in which children are present,
and in which they are brutally murdered, and the question of how many children
Lady Macbeth had might have some connection (for instance) with the problem of
how many children Lady Macduff had. On the other hand, it should also be
mentioned that since Lady Macbeth explicitly mentions having given suck to a
child, there is textual warrant for saying that she has had at least one. The
same cannot be said about the theory that Hamlet and Ophelia have had sexual
relations. The only evidence supporting such a hypothesis is precisely those
elements in the text that the hypothesis is supposed to explain, the contents
of the songs that Ophelia sings in her distraction. Since those songs echo in
their own way Hamlet's own reductive vision of sexuality, it seems to me that
they are sufficiently accounted for in terms of Hamlet's destructive influence
on the girl he has once professed to love. I don't think it is necessary to
infer there have

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Porter Jamison <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Feb 1996 18:34:18 -0800
Subject: 7.0125  Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Character
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0125  Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Character

>The many connotations for "nunnery" need or need not have
>been in Hamlet's mind, although they are obviously in the
>mind of this well-read scholar. I do not cancel out the
>possibility that Hamlet would be thinking brothel as well
>as convent. The logic of his rhetoric is for convent. His
>state of mind is for brothel . . . (snip)

Am I the only person who sees Hamlet using the word at first to mean "convent",
then after he assumes Ophelia's complicity in the plot to spy on him, he hurls
the slang meaning of "brothel" into her face as a parting shot?

Re: Funeral Elegy

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0127.  Monday, 19 February 1996.

(1)     From:   Stephanie Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Feb 1996 09:05:50 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0120  Re: Funeral Elegy

(2)     From:   Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Feb 1996 10:16:52 -0800
        Subj:   Funeral Elegy

(3)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Feb 1996 18:28:04 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0120  Re: Funeral Elegy


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephanie Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 Feb 1996 09:05:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 7.0120  Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0120  Re: Funeral Elegy

David Kathman;

I think we all know places in the plays where Shakespeare isn't at his best;
the interminable and flowery speeches of lords, comic passages that no longer
mean anything, and so forth, but there is an electrical energy that never goes
long without surfacing, a verve, a sense of life, that marks his works as his,
beyond any measurable indices of style or language. To explain the lifelessness
and dullness of this piece by the fact that elegies in general were dull just
won't do. What it does explain perhaps is that although he wrote in just about
every  poetic form, at least once, he never wrote an elegy. The man that did
write this poem no doubt had read a great deal of Shakespeare and did his best
to imitate him, but the magic in poetry doesn't come from using certain words,
syntax, or forms, but from passion. Ultimately it may be passion that makes the
difference between what is merely good and what is great. This poem isn't even
good. Many lines don't scan. Show me one thing we know to be Shakespeare's that
doesn't scan. I see a poor fool wearing his master's clothes. We may take him
for his master at a distance, but on closer view the only ones who are fooled
are those who see, not the man, but the clothes.

Stephanie Hughes

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 Feb 1996 10:16:52 -0800
Subject:        Funeral Elegy

David Kathman asks us to consider that snatch of Chapman's elegy for Prince
Henry, which is almost as bad as the Elegy by W.S.  But I would guess that it
was bought and paid for. I haven't heard that Chapman was a chum of Prince
Henry, or even knew the man. The lack of heart and plodding verse of Elegies
for hire is more likely to come from indifference than grief.

On the other hand, W.S. had in John Peter a "fast friend, soon lost".  The poet
confesses to the deceased that "I was thine", and that "my love was too remiss/
That had not made thee know how much I prized thee."  W.S. was not merely
employed for the job, "not hired, as heaven can witness in my soul," but was
calling this Elegy from his heart, and in his verse he says, "I offer up to
memory/ The value of my talent."  In other words, he did the best he could,
which is third-rate.

I think that other poems might be called up to prove Foster's case that the
Elegy is by Shakespeare, and the poem itself has certain turns of phrase that
suggest Shakespeare, but that can be said of many other poems of the early 17th
century, as Sir Edmund Chambers "The Shakspere Allusion Book" can witness.
Those scholars who are lining up behind Foster and Shaxicon must somehow get it
past their good sense that the man himself, Shakespeare, could write such bad
stuff even in a daze, even to comply with some tradition of dreary elegies, and
that he would willingly bind his imagination and tie his tongue to please the
mourners and condone bad poetry out of respect for the dead.

Shakespearean scholars are not expected to be judges of poetry, of course.
They may be, but it is not required.  Those who agree with a computer that the
Elegy is by Shakespeare will be at some risk.  The much-touted Shaxicon program
is a thin branch to crawl upon, no matter how stout and strong Foster et al may
praise it to be.  Another computer program will say differently, and then where
do you jump?  For those who have but a slight poetic ear, let them ask someone
who knows better of these things.  Shaxicon hasn't the foggiest.

The case seems to be this:  W.S. loved his friend, John Peter, but because of
the tradition that elegiac poetry must be dreary and without life, he took to
metaphore and gave us a choice example of a poem in rigormortis.  Other than
the Shaxicon program, this seems to be Foster's argument.

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 Feb 1996 18:28:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 7.0120  Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0120  Re: Funeral Elegy

David Schalkwyk suggests an interesting answer to the problem of FE, one that
has also been suggested by Richard Abrams in several (as yet unpublished)
essays. FE is written in the plain style, and so we shouldn't search for a
certain kind of imagery in its lines. So, in brief, the argument goes.

But what about the "style" of FE? The "style" that we are talking about in FE
is, if you will, micro-style, e.g., the way W.S. uses enjambement; the way W.S.
uses "who" and "whom"; the way W.S. uses certain words; the way W.S. uses
hendiadys.  We aren't (necessarily) talking about "image clusters" or
similarity to *Hamlet.*

From the observation that FE (apparently) exhibits Shakespeare's micro-style
comes a further question:  May a poet uses this micro-style and yet write a not
very interesting poem? The answer seems to be "yes." A great poem depends on
something more than "style."  (Use any definition you want of "great poem.")

If Don Foster, using style analysis, has correctly identified the author of
*Pimary Colors* (Joe Klein?), his identification of W.S. as William Shakespeare
will receive a boost. I can't wait to see who steps forward as the author!
Perhaps we will have to kidnap the literary agent to find out!

To some of Dave Kathman's questions, I have already indicated answers. About
Thorpe's relationship to Shakespeare, we can only speculate, but we should make
sure that our speculations are supported by as much evidence as possible. From
the evidence of the STC and Arber's transcript of the Stationers Register,
Thorpe was not a major player -- not as active as Eld was.  Thorpe seems to
have been connected to several other stationers (e.g., William Aspley), and
it's possible that he owned shares in several book stores. At one point early
in his career (1604-1610), he seems to have been interested in publishing plays
-- and entered plays by Chapman, Jonson, et al.  But we do not know who he was
representing when he entered these plays: the authors?  the players?  himself?

When Thorpe entered FE provisionally -- waiting for authorization to print --
who was he representing?  Let me suggest this scenario. Thorpe somehow got a
copy of FE. Perhaps he bought the copy because he decided that he could make
some money publishing it.  He entered it provisionally because he felt that,
for some reason, he needed "further" authorization. We will probably never know
why he felt he had to wait, but he found that he could not obtain the
authorization needed.  He sold his rights in the book to Eld (in a deal not
recorded in SR -- which isn't unusual), and Eld printed and published the poem
-- with or without authorization. Eld wasn't afraid of paying fines; he had
paid them before for printing what he should not have printed. (In this, Eld
was not unusual; most of the better known printers were fined now and again for
such things as illegally printing ballads.)

It has been argued that no publisher or printer could have expected to make
money from selling FE. But a cruise through the STC and the SR convinces me
that publishers, booksellers, and printers seemed, in the late 16th century and
early 17th century, to have expected to make money from the most unlikely
printing ventures. Why not FE?

Yours,
Bill Godshalk
University of Cincinnati

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.