2001

Playbills?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1621  Tuesday, 26 June 2001

From:           David Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 26 Jun 2001 00:02:34 -0600
Subject:        Playbills?

I'm interested in playbills from the Elizabethan/Jacobean era, partly
for their intrinsic interest and partly because I'm interested in the
stationers who successively held the monopoly on printing them (John
Charlewood until 1593, James Roberts from 1594 to 1615, William Jaggard
from 1615 onward).  William A. Jackson's *Records of the Court of the
Stationers' Company 1602-1640* (1957) says (in a note on page 2) that a
playbill printed by Jaggard for "his Maiesties seruants" survives as
British Library MS C.18.e.2 (74).  Has anybody on the list seen this
playbill?  What does it say, exactly?  Is it for a specific play?

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

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

Re: Post-Colonial Shakespeare Films

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1620  Tuesday, 26 June 2001

From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Jun 2001 09:56:19 -0400
Subject: 12.1589 Re: Post-Colonial Shakespeare Films Online
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1589 Re: Post-Colonial Shakespeare Films Online

I contacted the Venice Biennale and was told that none of the films is
commercially available.  They can apparently be rented, however, by
contacting the Archive in India. To get more info, email  Mrs. Aruna
Vasudev, at Cinemaya This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

"not well married"??

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1618  Tuesday, 26 June 2001

From:           Philip Weller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Jun 2001 10:54:40 -0700
Subject:        "not well married"??

Friar Lawrence, lecturing Capulet and Lady Capulet on the proper
attitude towards the death of Juliet, says, "She's not well married that
lives married long, / But she's best married that dies married young"
(4.5.77-78).

To me it looks like this implies that the longer a woman is married, the
more likely she is to sin, which seems excessively cynical for the
context.  It seems more appropriate to Rosalind's teasing of Orlando
about the waywardness of wives.

So, I have two questions:

1) Is there another way to interpret these lines?

2) Could the statement be a "sentence," a truism which the Friar could
think would be helpful to the grieving parents?

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1619  Tuesday, 26 June 2001

[1]     From:   Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Jun 2001 20:32:49
        Subj:   Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts

[2]     From:   John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:08:59 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 12.1598 Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Jun 2001 20:32:49
Subject:        Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts

Sam Small once again insists on Shakespeare's universality:

>Add to this his acute sense of conflict and drama and you have a literary
>tract that will translate to any culture on the planet and will be
>instantly understood. ... >Shakespeare was ... the master exponent of the
>universal act.

Really? I wonder (once again) how Sam knew so certainly that there was
"a literary tract that will translate to ANY culture on the planet and
will be INSTANTLY understood" (emphasis added). Is he familiar with all
the cultures in the world (both known and unknown)? Has he visited all
the countries? Has he talked to every single person on the earth? Isn't
this another *romantic generalization*? If his assumption is correct,
why do SHAKSPERs disagree each other when we read Shakespeare? Having
lived in three countries, studied different cultures and met many people
with different cultural backgrounds, it's very difficult for me to
swallow his assumption.

>The unconscious part of our mind is something that writers especially
>unconsciously employ.

Isn't this "begging the question"?

Takashi Kozuka

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:08:59 +0100
Subject: 12.1598 Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts
Comment:        RE: SHK 12.1598 Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts

>>You should bear in mind that, in
>>important respects, Copnor isn't even like North End.

>Not something that I'd ever considered...  Mind you, I probably
>don't help matters by thinking of Buckland when people say North
>End.  Now, if you'd said Stamshaw...

Those unfamiliar with the game *Mornington Crescent* will probably be
completely baffled by this Portsmouth version...

John Briggs

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

Re: Cuthbert Burby

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1617  Tuesday, 26 June 2001

[1]     From:   Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Jun 2001 12:52:11 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1595 Re: Cuthbert Burby

[2]     From:   David Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 26 Jun 2001 00:02:30 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1595 Re: Cuthbert Burby


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Jun 2001 12:52:11 EDT
Subject: 12.1595 Re: Cuthbert Burby
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1595 Re: Cuthbert Burby

I missed the start of this thread which already looks likes it has
descended to violent strokes. But just a question:

Is Cuthbert Burbie being described as ONLY 'a bookseller'  (i.e. NOT a
Printer or Publisher as well) or is there evidence for his being more
than this (i.e. printing of Orlando Furioso by John Danter for C.B)?

I have been recently coming across these Blayney-ite divisions between
Printers, Publishers and Booksellers more and more often and thus I am
interested to know how far people agree with Blayney's distinctions on
this.

Please, no antagonism, just sources and reasons.

Cheers,
Marcus.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 26 Jun 2001 00:02:30 -0600
Subject: 12.1595 Re: Cuthbert Burby
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1595 Re: Cuthbert Burby

Peter Blayney wrote, via Leslie Thompson:

> Should we really assume that Will Sharpe's specific question concealed a
> request for pages of half-digested biographical overkill?  If so, then
> *pace* David Kathman, Burby didn't marry Elizabeth until after her
> previous husband (Andrew White, Stationer) had been buried in St Mary
> Bothaw on 17 December 1593.  The wedding was in 1594 (i.e.  1593/4).

I apologize for my error in writing 1593 rather than 1593/4.  I also
apologize for misstating the details of Burby's bequest to his former
apprentice; that was my own fault due to haste, since McKerrow's
*Dictionary* correctly states that Burby bequeated the lease of the
Cornhill property only.

[much very interesting and valuable information about Cuthbert
Burby snipped]

> But I digress, because the question that was actually *asked* has long
> since been answered."

In response to Peter Blayney's outburst, I can only plead excessive
enthusiasm.  When the original query about Cuthbert Burby's activities
in 1592 popped up in my inbox, I was (as I still am) engaged in
biographical research about several other stationers, and thus found
myself surrounded with various research works on the subject.  Wanting
to supplement my hazy memory of Burby's life before responding, I looked
him up in the books surrounding me.  Not knowing exactly what the
questioner was looking for, I included in my response all the pertinent
facts I could find about Burby's activities in 1592; then, I threw in a
few extra things about his birth and death, just because I like to have
a frame of reference for a person's life.  If the result was
"half-digested biographical overkill", I humbly apologize; as I tried to
say my post, this was off-the-cuff and based "just on what I have at
hand", and I did leave out quite a few facts that I could have added,
including many of the facts about Burby's children that Mr. Blayney
cited.

But I'm glad that my post led Mr. Blayney to share some of his
researches on Burby, far more (as he notes) than the original poster
asked for.  Although the revised STC has lots of great information
that's not in McKerrow's *Dictionary of Printers and Booksellers* and
the other older reference works I mentioned, the scholarly community
could still use a thorough overhauling of McKerrow's 91-year-old work.
The new DNB (due in 2004) will fill some of this gap for the major
figures in the Stationers' Company (a few of which I'm writing up
myself), and once I have some other things out of the way, I plan to
update my online Biographical Dictionary of Elizabethan Theater to
include stationers who printed and/or published plays.  As these
projects go forward, Peter Blayney's seemingly inexhaustible store of
knowledge about early modern stationers will certainly be a valuable
resource.

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

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.