2002

Re: Theobald

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1399  Wednesday, 23 May 2002

[1]     From:   Kathryn Prince <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 May 2002 12:19:59 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1367 Theobald

[2]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 May 2002 17:22:53 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1384 Re: Theobald

[3]     From:   Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 May 2002 13:50:56 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1384 Re: Theobald


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kathryn Prince <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 May 2002 12:19:59 -0400
Subject: 13.1367 Theobald
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1367 Theobald

Many thanks to all who replied on and off list to my query about the
pronunciation of Lewis Theobald's surname. Special thanks to Tom Bishop
for making me laugh all day long with his limerick.

Kathryn Prince

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 May 2002 17:22:53 +0100
Subject: 13.1384 Re: Theobald
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1384 Re: Theobald

"I have been told that the locale of the Bishop's residence, Ely Place
(a small street off High Holborn in the City of London), is politically
a part of Cambridgeshire.  Anything to this?"

Ely Place is JUST outside the City of London, so I guess that 400 yrs
ago it might well have fallen inside the Cambridgeshire boundary. No
longer, mind, not by a long shot! London is now a County in its own
right; I live 9 miles from the City (SE) and I'm still in it.

"By the way, there are no strawberries growing there anymore."

Were these strawberries the inspiration for the evocatively named
Bleeding Heart Yard, which is just around the corner from Ely Place?

m

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 May 2002 13:50:56 -0400
Subject: 13.1384 Re: Theobald
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1384 Re: Theobald

Tibbald or not Tibbald, the pronunciation of Holinshed raises an issue
for me of no relevance to this thread that I'd like to share. I recently
downloaded a free program from ms that converts any of my Word or html
files into ebooks which it can then read back to me in a voice that
sounds like Steven Hawking as I follow the bouncing highlight across the
text. I've become addicted to it. Steven (as I call my lector) is
currently reading Edward III to me (all the plays and some poems are
freely available as ebooks plus a pretty huge corpus of other lit).
Hearing my own writing thus recited has helped my revision process, and
listening to articles downloaded from news sites has completely replaced
generic network infotainment. One of its few flaws, however, is that,
while it handles pauses, stresses and punctuation pretty well, it gives
quirky pronunciation of many words it doesn't recognize, such as
Holinshed, which it consistently pronounces as "holinsh'd." In any case,
if anyone's interested, it's at:
http://office.microsoft.com/downloads/2002/wdReader.aspx .

Clifford

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Lear Diagnosed

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1398  Wednesday, 23 May 2002

From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 May 2002 12:12:00 -0400
Subject: 13.1381 Re: Lear Diagnosed
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1381 Re: Lear Diagnosed

>If, as Larry Weiss concludes, Lear's symptoms are a "tight fit" for
>296.44 in DSM-IV, do the writers of this reference acknowledge the play
>as their source?

These people are remarkably illiterate when it comes to matters
Shakespearean.  With the arguable exceptions of Freud and Adler, they
are almost always laughably incorrect.  For example, they call
irrational jealousy an "Othello complex" when Leontes would be apt.

Of course, the editors of DSM-IV were not trying to describe a Lear
Syndrome.  Evidently, the authors of the journal article set about
trying to diagnose Lear according the DSM criteria and came up with
296.44.  It is plausible, but not certain.

Anticipating the flak I would get for ascribing real illnesses to
fictitious persons, it is sorta fun to try to diagnose the ailments of
the various characters.  For example, Bardolph was pretty clearly a
rhinophyma sufferer.

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Recent Editions

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1396  Wednesday, 23 May 2002

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 May 2002 08:51:18 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1389 Re: Recent Editions

[2]     From:   Holger Schott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 May 2002 13:30:26 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 13.1389 Re: Recent Editions

[3]     From:   John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 23 May 2002 01:32:02 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1389 Re: Recent Editions


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 May 2002 08:51:18 -0700
Subject: 13.1389 Re: Recent Editions
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1389 Re: Recent Editions

The arguments against the Arden 3 approach to *Ham* strike me as
misguided and simplistic.  There are a wealth of conflated texts, and
one may wallow in them to one's heart's content.  None of them come as
close to what Shakespeare probably wrote as Q1, Q2, and F do
independently.  They are false constructs, cobbled together in an
editor's study that fool people into thinking they have Shakespeare's
*Hamlet.*

The Arden 3 will put on the market an accessible and reasonably priced
version of both Qs and F for those who can't find or afford the high
priced spread.  It will also make the instability of these texts
concretely known to many who would not otherwise be aware of it.

There will still be conflated texts aplenty for those who chose them.
There is also room in the marketplace for the Arden 3, and I believe it
is to be applauded.

Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Holger Schott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 May 2002 13:30:26 -0400
Subject: 13.1389 Re: Recent Editions
Comment:        RE: SHK 13.1389 Re: Recent Editions

David Bishop wrote,

>The Arden 3, from what I've seen,
>is going off in the direction of scholarship and history, and neglecting
>criticism. The only one I know fairly well is The Tempest, an edition
>bloated with performance history and colonial controversies. What actual
>criticism can be extracted
>from it is pretty thin gruel. Frank Kermode's edition, admirable as it is,
>is getting old. A new
>edition is needed, but it would be good if it were better than his, and
>better than the
>Arden 3.

What exactly is the distinction between "performance history," "colonial
controversies," "history," "scholarship" (!!!) and "criticism"? I
presume by the latter you mean some sort of formalist interpretative
endeavor? Surely all these ways of engaging with a text and its history
are modes of criticism? As for a good new edition of _The Tempest_, how
about Stephen Orgel's OUP one? To much "scholarship" in that one as
well?

In general, I wonder if a critical edition (critical in the sense of
_Textkritik_) is really the place for what you call "criticism".
Shouldn't it rather offer the reader the information necessary to begin
his or her critical engagement? And surely the efforts of Kastan,
McLeod, Orgel, Werstine, Stallybrass & de Grazia et al. have taught us
that "scholarship," by which I assume you mean textual scholarship, is
an essential basis for that engagement, given the radical instability of
Shakespeare's texts.

>So limp that I don't believe Shakespeare would have
>written it.

So you go for a version that strikes you as dramatically more powerful
and/or aesthetically preferable; in other words, you tweak the text to
produce a Shakespeare that is "better," because the Shakespeare you have
in mind will always write the better line. I agree that the Q2 version
is preferable on aesthetic grounds - to me and you, not necessarily to
Shakespeare & co., and even if that were the case, we still have no
grounds on which to decide why and how the line got changed - or even
when! Which takes me to my next point:

>To give "idle" and "wicked" equal weight, with "idle" presented as
>Shakespeare's
>final choice, seems to me to lose contact with Shakespeare.

Who says that? I don't know that we can regard _F_ as _Shakespeare's_
final version - it was probably the version then played by the King's
Men, but if that had anything to do with Shakespeare or not is another
question.  Alternatively, _Q2_ might just represent a _later_ revision
than _F_ -- it's easy enough to imagine a scenario where the company
reverted to an earlier version of the play later in its performance
history, sometime between 1604 and 1623, no? I don't know what the _A3_
editors argue - haven't had a chance to read the _New Yorker_ article
yet... Printing all three texts achieves at least one thing: it keeps
the question open, it doesn't suggest that there is a preferable choice
(because the road not taken is only recorded in a footnote): preferable
on textual-historical grounds rather than critical or aesthetic grounds,
that is. The latter really have no place in a scholarly edition.

>When editors can no longer hear that any reading is wrong, even in a case
>as
>obvious as this, they may be spending too much time studying texts
>instead of reading plays.

That's a very weird distinction. First you object to the presence of
performance history in the _A3_ _Tempest_, now you rail against editors
who can't see the play for the text... Surely, if anything, keeping the
options open, allowing the play to exist in various versions, is truer
to Early Modern performance _and_ publication practice, no? Modern day
actors and directors will make their own choices anyway - in a sense,
these new edition will show them the broad spectrum of possible
alternative directions even _within_ the "original" text(s), from they,
as performers, are of course free to deviate, just as their early modern
forebears did...

Best,
Holger

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 23 May 2002 01:32:02 +0100
Subject: 13.1389 Re: Recent Editions
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1389 Re: Recent Editions

Re-reading Burrow's account of the Hamlet texts, I find that it is not
as bad as I first thought, but what I particularly object to is his
contention that using one (or more) text to emend another amounts to
conflation.  It doesn't, of course, and it would be ridiculous to edit
texts separately without reference to one another.  (But if you are
editing conservatively, you would not emend if the reading makes good
sense on its own, even if the reading of another text seems better.)  I
think talk of three texts is misleading:  I don't think Arden are
intending to edit three texts of Hamlet.  It is Arden3 practice where
there is a "bad quarto" to include it as a reduced facsimile in an
appendix.  I read the original report to mean that Q1 would be a
facsimile in the volume with the edited F text, and that the edited Q2
text would be in a separate volume.

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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Richard Hathaway

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1397  Wednesday, 23 May 2002

[1]     From:   Kevin De Ornellas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 May 2002 15:52:45 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1390 Re: Richard Hathaway

[2]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 May 2002 17:37:30 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1390 Re: Richard Hathaway

[3]     From:   Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 May 2002 11:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1390 Re: Richard Hathaway


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kevin De Ornellas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 May 2002 15:52:45 +0000
Subject: 13.1390 Re: Richard Hathaway
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1390 Re: Richard Hathaway

>Is there any published version of Henslowe's diary?

There have been several, but the definitive edition is R. A. Foakes and
R. T. Rickert, eds, 'Henslowe's Diary' (CUP, 1961).  Foakes also
produced a magnificent, but forbidding, two-volume facsimile edition in
the late seventies.  See also the second edition of Carol Chillington
Rutter, comp., 'Documents of the Rose Playhouse' (MUP, 1999).
Frequently, I break-up my undergraduate groups into small groups, and
make them look for relevant receipts or properties relating to the
particular play we are studying that week.  When they find that Henslowe
retained a bridle for Tamburlaine, or a horse 'with his legs', or a
garment that was to make the actor 'disappear', they can really get some
insights into the sort of pre-naturalistic (terrible adverb, but I can't
think of a better one right now) style of the Elizabethan stage.
Rutter's accessible book is really helpful for revealing the potential
mileage to be gained by comparing dramatic moments made possible by the
texts with Henslowe's records of material, theatrical artifacts.

Kevin De Ornellas
Queen's University, Belfast

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 May 2002 17:37:30 +0100
Subject: 13.1390 Re: Richard Hathaway
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1390 Re: Richard Hathaway

Sophie Masson asks,

> Is there any published version
> of Henslowe's diary?

Later this year Cambridge University Press is reprinting the 1961
edition by Foakes and Rickert, in hardcover and paperback.  Foakes will
be doing an additional introduction.

Gabriel Egan

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 May 2002 11:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 13.1390 Re: Richard Hathaway
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1390 Re: Richard Hathaway

> Thank you. I had not seen that reference. Is there
> any published version
> of Henslowe's diary?

R.A. Foakes's definitive edition is out of print but he has mentioned an
attempt to get it back into print.  Don't know if or when...

Brian Willis

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Deeper Than Plummet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1395  Wednesday, 23 May 2002

From:           Janet OKeefe <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           22 May 2002 07:47:57 -0700
Subject: 13.1375 Re: Deeper Than Plummet
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1375 Re: Deeper Than Plummet

> p.s.: In what way is world of The Tempest "recognizably Renaissance?"
> Are there indications of its period beyond the establishment of Tunis in
> place of Carthage?

To touch on an earlier discussion, one example is that Prospero is very
much a Renaissance mage.  Current magical practice and what we can
reconstruct of ancient magical practice is very different from what
Prospero did.  The magic he practices fits the magical texts of his era
alone.

Janet T. O'Keefe

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.