2000

Re: Apocryphal Works

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0706  Wednesday, 5 April 2000.

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 04 Apr 2000 08:47:15 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0690 Apocryphal Works & Holographic Research

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 04 Apr 2000 15:56:47 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0690 Apocryphal Works & Holographic Research


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 04 Apr 2000 08:47:15 -0700
Subject: 11.0690 Apocryphal Works & Holographic Research
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0690 Apocryphal Works & Holographic Research

For reasons to ignore Charles Hamilton's attribution of The Second
Maiden's Tragedy to Shakespeare, John Ciccarelli may want to have a look
at the review of Hamilton's book in Small Press Magazine, Winter 1995,
and the article Testing the Second Maiden's Tragedy in Performance,
Shakespeare Bulletin, vol. 15, #2, Spring 1997.

Brian Vickers will also discuss it in his forthcoming book, I imagine
due out in year or two.  Brian?

Those are the references I know off the top of my head.  I trust other
list members will give you more.

Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 04 Apr 2000 15:56:47 -0400
Subject: 11.0690 Apocryphal Works & Holographic Research
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0690 Apocryphal Works & Holographic Research

John Ciccarelli wrote:

> Hamilton argues that
> by using Shakespear'e will, which he insists was written by him, that we
> can discover other samples of his writing.  The crux of his thesis being
> that the 'Second Maiden's' manuscript and Shakespear'e will were written
> in the same hand as well as that of Hand D in Sir Thomas More.

This, indeed, was the thesis of Hamilton's book; but not long after the
book was published he seems to have forgotten that he wrote it.  I
attended a (rather abominable) performance of "The Second Maiden's
Tragedy" revised to call the main character "Cardenio" shortly after
Hamilton's book came out.  Hamilton was there and answered (or tried to
answer) questions from the audience.  I asked if it was not a fact that
it is hard to discern one person's secretary hand from another's, and he
said that in fact he did not rely on any claimed handwriting similarity,
but, rather, the style of the play.  This surprised me, as Hamilton's
field was disputed documents analysis, not literary criticism.  In any
event, he then made the point that the play was a "romance," like Per,
Cym, WT and Tem, and, since it was written late in WS's career, it was
probably by him.  At this point, I lost interest.  In fact, SMT is
Senacan; it reminds me of nothing in the Canon so much as Titus
Andronicus, and it is as about as romantic.

>  There is a school of
> thought that Shakespeare did not actually right the will himself, but
> was taken down by a clerk, therefore Hamilton's arguement is void
> because his source material is suspect.  If this is the case, however,
> why is third page of the will almost illegible, as if written by an
> unsteady hand, and why does the will include the phrase "by me",
> indicating it was written by Shakespeare?

Lawyers wrote wills for clients in the early 16th Century just as they
do today, and Shakespeare's will does not appear homemade to me.  "By
me" was just a formality signifying that the person whose signature
follows adopts the instrument as his own.

> Is any research into this area taking place?  If not, why isn't there?

There is too little autograph material available to make handwriting
analysis fruitful.  Probably, the most innovative research in the area
is Don Foster's SHAXICON work, which I believe is solely responsible for
the inclusion of EdwIII in the Riverside (2d Ed).  I am not aware of any
other complete works that incorporate this play, and the Riverside
includes it by itself with no other company than "Elegy" at the end of
the book, instead of folding it into the Histories section.   My
personal view is that the computer nodded; there is nothing in this play
that reminds me of a genuine Shakespearean play.

Re: Community Theatre

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0705  Wednesday, 5 April 2000.

From:           Melissa D. Aaron <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 04 Apr 2000 08:13:43 -0700
Subject: 11.0688 Re: Community Theatre
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0688 Re: Community Theatre

>I don't walk out on bad sets and costumes.  I walk out on bad acting and
>direction.  The best community theater I have seen pales when compared
>to the worst regional theater I have seen, and, again in my experience,
>the quality of theater is usually greater on Broadway and the West End
>than in the regions.  Having said that, I want to give credit to those
>who work so hard to put on a show, even a bad show.  I actually feel
>guilty for walking out lest I hurt their feelings.  On the other hand, I
>consider it a great sin to allow yourself to be bored, and my greater
>responsibility is to myself.

I really was planning on letting this topic go by, but--

I think some of the confusion may stem from what you'd call "community
theater."  I've seen good, bad and indifferent community theater.
Sometimes it's the actors and director that make the difference, but
sometimes it's the choice of play;  I adore Tennessee Williams but
always prepare myself for tortured Southern accents whenever I see
*Glass Menagerie,* whether it's a professional production or not.

I'm genuinely puzzled by your Broadway and West End experience, though;
my experience has been quite different, and suggests that often
productions on Broadway are expensive overproduced crowd pleasers and
also that much of the best stuff is either regional or off-Broadway in
its origins.  That's a generalization, of course; I wouldn't trade
having seen actors like Rex Harrison and Martin Shaw for the world; but
there's also Alec Baldwin as Macbeth to be reckoned with.

Finally, I wanted to mention that I recently saw a production of *Tis
Pity She's a Whore* at the Knightsbridge Theater in Pasadena,
California.  I saw this play years ago at the National, with a much
larger budget and I believe Rupert Graves as Giovanni.  Both productions
were good, but I actually thought the Knightsbridge one was better in
terms of its overall vision and grasp of the play.  If anyone is able to
go see it, go.

Melissa D. Aaron

Re: Wooden O

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0703  Tuesday, 4 April 2000.

From:           Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 04 Apr 2000 13:25:53 +0000
Subject: 11.0665 Re: Wooden O
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0665 Re: Wooden O

It seems on further thought that the actions by the characters Nurse,
Capulet etc. show the innocent Fool becoming the worldly- wise Minstrel.

Counting to Ten: A Clarification

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0704  Wednesday, 5 April 2000.

From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, April 05, 2000
Subject:        Counting to Ten: A Clarification

Dear SHAKSPEReans:

From some of the responses I have gotten to my "A Few Matters Regarding
SHAKSPER" posting of a few days ago, I feel a need to make a bit of a
clarification.

No one ever need apologize for adding to the work I do with SHAKSPER.
This work is, as Alan Blackman pointed out yesterday, a labor of love,
and I assure everyone that there is no way that while I am its
editor/moderator/owner that SHAKSPER will be anything but edited.

I will return to the matter of moderation in a moment, but now some
words about editing SHAKSPER.

I do indeed love bringing SHAKSPER to the members of this list. The time
that I spend on it is almost the most fun I have when the sun is up. I
also love working on my edition of Shakespeare's POEMS for the Internet
Shakespeare Editions and reading and writing in the Folger Library, and
I am greatly disappointed that my current situation does not allow more
time to direct to these efforts. However, when it comes to SHAKSPER, all
of the time that I spend is much more enjoyable and rewarding than
making budgets, listening to student and faculty complaints, visiting
classrooms, evaluating faculty performance, writing retention reports,
writing assessment reports, writing annual reports, writing any report -
you get the idea. I do love teaching, and I love editing SHAKSPER just
as much, but I do not love the administrative side of my current
position.

Now, when I requested that members count to ten before hitting the reply
key, what I had in mind was that members would initiate a kind of
self-regulation: self-moderation if you will. Is there really a need to
reply to seven out of the ten digests under discussion on a particular
day or to reply four times to the same digest? I strive to maintain
SHAKSPER as an academic discussion list. My preference is for a somewhat
elevated level of discourse without, of course, ruling out occasional
humor or just plain silliness.  My point is that I believe that the
membership has as much responsibility as I do in moderating SHAKSPER. At
one time or another, it has been suggested to me that members be allowed
only to post once a day or that postings should not exceed one or two
computer screens. I am not willing to moderate SHAKSPER in this way, but
I do believe that some submissions are frivolous or are not really
necessary or productive. I attribute this attitude to the fact that I am
not a very touchy-feely, warm and cuddly kind of guy.

That's my clarification. I was and am making a plea for self-moderation
on SHAKSPER. That's it. Nothing more.

Now to editing today's digests and packing for Montreal.

Hardy

Re: A Few Latin Terms

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0702  Tuesday, 4 April 2000.

From:           Peter Groves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 04 Apr 2000 12:19:57 +1000
Subject: 11.0659 Re: A Few Latin Terms
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0659 Re: A Few Latin Terms

I've always liked Gibbon's footnote on Heliogabalus, which explains that
he chose his chief ministers "per enormitate membrorum"

Peter L. Groves
Monash University

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.