2003

Re: Endings of Titus Andronicus

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0361  Tuesday, 25 February 2003

[1]     From:   Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Feb 2003 14:43:25 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0351 Re: Endings of Titus Andronicus

[2]     From:   Anna Kamaralli <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 25 Feb 2003 13:08:18 +1100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0351 Re: Endings of Titus Andronicus


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Feb 2003 14:43:25 -0500
Subject: 14.0351 Re: Endings of Titus Andronicus
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0351 Re: Endings of Titus Andronicus

John Briggs may berate me all he likes. Yes, I was not born to be a
textual bibliographer either.  But the fact remains that Briggs makes a
logically fallacious conclusion in equating what is certain with what
actually happened.  It may be true that there is "no evidence" that
printers collaborated with editors in producing Shakespeare quartos.
But there is also no evidence that they didn't.  Just because there is
no evidence of collaboration doesn't, in short, mean that collaboration
didn't occur (routinely).  And it strikes that the reasonableness theory
that there were editors (even Ben Jonson served as an editor in Brigg's
scenario) is testified to by Brigg's need to attack it.  Clearly, many
people (apparently almost all) Briggs would recognize as born textual
bibliographers disagree with him.

I agree with William Proctor Williams' judicious account of printing
practices, but do not see that they pose a problem for my theory.  If
"there is almost no evidence that the text of a play quarto mattered a
great deal to 16th- and 17th-century printers. .  . [and] very little
evidence that most Stationers of the Early Modern period were very much
concerned with such matters," why did the printers bother to make up an
ending for Q2 at all?   A new ending is hardly equivalent to a
regularization of the sort Williams describes as common printing
practice.   If the printers cared so little about Q2, why didn't they
just say something like "The hell with it.  This ending sucks, but who
cares?  The suckers will buy it anyway."  The ending of Q2 suggests that
someone, possibly someone other than the printers, cared "a great deal."

It seems to me that a case for Q2's ending ought to rest not on general
theories about printing practices (about which we know very little
because there is almost "no evidence" of how they worked) but on the
specifics of what we do or don't know about the printers who printed
it.  If we know who the printers were, do we know what else they printed
and, if so, are there similar kinds of changes we can detect in second
editions of texts they printed?  If we don't know who they were, then it
seems to me that my theory is as good as the theories (that's all they
are, theories) thus far proposed.

Best,
Richard

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Anna Kamaralli <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 25 Feb 2003 13:08:18 +1100
Subject: 14.0351 Re: Endings of Titus Andronicus
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0351 Re: Endings of Titus Andronicus

In response more to the title of this thread than the contents, I have
my own theory about the ending of Titus Andronicus.

I believe that the director's overall attitude to the play, and the
cycle of revenge, can be distilled into the decision about what to do
with Aaron's baby at the end. Is it killed, or does it live?

If the baby is killed (Jane Howell), the director believes that the play
represents an inevitable cycle of revenge and brutality, that is only
pausing for breath at the end of the play, before the next round. If the
baby is preserved (Julie Taymor), the director wants us to believe in
the possibility of a way out of the cycle.

There are probably equivalent moments in the history plays. Any calls on
that?

Anna.

_______________________________________________________________
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: Reviews

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0360  Tuesday, 25 February 2003

[1]     From:   Ted Dykstra <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Feb 2003 14:30:16 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0350 Re: Reviews

[2]     From:   David Friedberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Feb 2003 17:17:23 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0350 Re: Reviews

[3]     From:   Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Feb 2003 22:45:57 +0000
        Subj:   Grouse Beating


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ted Dykstra <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Feb 2003 14:30:16 EST
Subject: 14.0350 Re: Reviews
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0350 Re: Reviews

I am still trying to wrestle, as I know many are, with the purpose of
criticism, regardless of who is doing the writing. Ultimately, the end
effect of criticism of any kind on a work of art (after its creation) is
nil. The artists have already completed their work, and it stands,
vulnerable, as it is. This to me is so much braver and more interesting
than the armchair speculations of people who have never known what it is
to be vulnerable in their own work, who seldom if ever acknowledge that
nothing can be created without the bravery of the artist.

So in pondering the difference between the people who write about others
who are doing something, and the people who actually doing something
(that other people write about!)... I'd have to say no critic has ever
come close to giving us what the artists they criticize have. Without
the artists, in fact, they cannot even exist.

Ted Dykstra

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Friedberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Feb 2003 17:17:23 -0500
Subject: 14.0350 Re: Reviews
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0350 Re: Reviews

Charles Weinstein writes:

>As for academic reviewers in general, I find that one page of Tynan

The Board may like to know that in 1957 Ken Tynan remarked to Marghanita
Laski on BBC TV that "Nowadays no one would care if a man used the word
fuck in front of a lady" The Beeb's censors left it in

The next day seventeen million of Greater London's eight million lady
listeners called in to say that they did mind, had never heard the word
before, didn't know what it meant, had never used it themselves, and
certainly never done it

Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis

David Friedberg

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Feb 2003 22:45:57 +0000
Subject:        Grouse Beating

Oh Charlie! (23 Feb 14.0312). To borrow the weary phrase o' the Sun,
"Gotcha!"

Now why does the "Glorious 12th" come to mind? And why Lear TLN
1170-73?  And Rumpelstiltskin? And quoting other folks letters 'n' all
so demonstrating research and close textual reading. All these
characteristics combined with the phenomenal adductive reasoning you
have to know that your "critical heroes" are "unknown" to me lead me to
do a bit of adducing m'self........ You've all the qualities to be an
academic reviewer, man. Go for it!

(But, absit omen, not at the expense of your cheerful hot mails to the
list. Without them I'd resort to the absinth and die of the ennui.)

Farewell, and come with better music.

I remain Sir, etc

Graham Hall.

_______________________________________________________________
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: Devils and Witches

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0358 Tuesday, 25 February 2003

[1]     From:   John D. Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Feb 2003 14:00:24 -0500
        Subj:   Devils and Witches

[2]     From:   Roger Parris <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Feb 2003 11:33:03 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0356 Devils into Witches?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John D. Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Feb 2003 14:00:24 -0500
Subject:        Devils and Witches

Harriet Walter's claim about devils and witches is wrong in its second
part, if not its first (for which I know no evidence).  Devil plays were
extremely popular in the seventeenth century:  old ones like Dr. Faustus
and The Merry Devil of Edmonton were constantly revived, and new ones
were written virtually every year up to the closing of the theaters.
For a chronological list, see John D. Cox, The Devil and the Sacred in
English Drama, 1350-1642, pp.  209-211.

John Cox
Hope College

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roger Parris <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Feb 2003 11:33:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 14.0356 Devils into Witches?
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0356 Devils into Witches?

>In a recently-published essay on Macbeth, the
>actress Harriet Walter
>writes:
>
>"Shakespeare himself had to make adjustments to keep
>up with stage
>fashion.  Originally he had three devils in place of
>the weird sisters,
>but the theatrical currency of devils was already
>starting to devalue
>through overuse, and they were more likely to induce
>laughter than
>fear."
>
>I had never come across this datum before, and
>Ms.Walter cites no
>authority for it.  Is there any?
>
> --Charles Weinstein

This is definitely unknown to seventeenth century tradition. And I do
not recollect Chambers or the
Furness Variorum listing anything similar for the eighteenth or
nineteenth centuries.

_______________________________________________________________
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: Review of The Tempest at the Old Vic

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0359 Tuesday, 25 February 2003

[1]     From:   David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Feb 2003 19:26:38 GMT0BST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0349 Review of The Tempest at the Old Vic

[2]     From:   David M Richman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 25 Feb 2003 07:06:06 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0349 Review of The Tempest at the Old Vic


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Feb 2003 19:26:38 GMT0BST
Subject: 14.0349 Review of The Tempest at the Old Vic
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0349 Review of The Tempest at the Old Vic

I, too, went to see the Gandage/Jacobi Tempest, and have to say that I
was very disappointed - particularly as some of the newspaper reviewers
I most respect (Mr Weinstein, please note) had written very favourably
of the production.

The text was heavily cut (1hr 50 mins playing time) - not necessarily a
problem, and in the case of 2.1 possibly a blessing; though the heavy
cutting of the masque I was less happy with.  I agree with Katy
Dickinson that Miranda and Ferdinand came out of it well - they managed
to give 3.1 something of the hesitancy yet ceremony it requires, and,
praise be, kept physical contact to the simple moment of the
handfasting.  Nonetheless some pandering to modern susceptibilities was
evident in the cutting of Ferdinand's later protestations that he will
not anticipate their wedding night, and in the adoption (as in Boyd's
2002 RSC production) of the, to me, utterly implausible notion that
Prospero's injunction 'No tongue, all eyes' is a prohibition of French
kissing.

The Stephano/Trinculo/Caliban sub-plot went for not very much, with a
good deal of shouting, and neither with much inventiveness in the comic
business, nor, alternatively, an attempt to convey the potential
brutality of Stephano.  (This latter was much better done in Boyd's
production, as the comedy had been in Noble's RSC production in 1998.)
The Caliban seemed neither one thing nor another; the blotched make-up
tried to suggest the scars of Prospero's punishment, but he seemed
merely resentful rather than enraged.  At the end his recognition of his
folly in following Stephano and Trinculo was played straight, acquiring
a certain dignity, and his repentance was endorsed by a hesitant
forgiving touch from Jacobi's Prospero.

Though the Alonso did, for once, manage to persuade one of his grief at
the loss of his son, and of his penitence, he was not helped, visually,
by having a sword rather improbably strapped around his lounge suit.
Antonio and Sebastian were unconvincing villains - as they of course
often are. (Though I found Boyd's villains much more persuasive in 2002,
and in the otherwise pretty dismal Globe production of 2000 found the
more comic version of a quick-witted Antonio exasperated at an
excessively dim Sebastian's slowness on the uptake worked surprisingly
well. 2.1 is a horrid scene to play, but it can be done.)

The Ariel was a welcome change from the highly resentful servant which
has tended to dominate productions for a very long time; light of build
and sprightly of movement, he managed both to convey Ariel's delight in
his abilities, and yet not to lose the undertow of desire for freedom.
He was also given rather good music to sing, and moved easily between
the tenor and alto-falsetto ranges (increasingly the norm for Ariel,
perhaps under the influence of Benjamin Britten's alto Oberon in his
Midsummer Night's Dream.)  Though I do have a particular nostalgia for
Stephen Oliver's score, including the through-composed operatic masque,
which graced 1982, this restrained but effective music, lightly
accompanied, was one of the successes of the production.  At the end I
thought at first we were to have a replay of 1982, when Ariel departed
before Prospero's final instructions to him, but this time Ariel was
simply sitting downstage right, and when freed exited with a slow walk
and backward, almost regretful glance at his erstwhile master.

Jacobi, I'm afraid, I did find disappointing.  The more so since I
consider his 1982 rendition (memory supported by repeated viewings of
the archive video) one of the most persuasive I have seen.  But then,
this was perhaps because I was looking forward to seeing how the 60+year
old actor would return to a part he played in his forties - and it is no
doubt invidious to go to a production in order continuously to measure
it against the past.  The surprise, however, was how little had
changed.  The curtain which disappeared into the book at the end of the
storm to reveal Jacobi trembling with the effort of his magic was a
fairly direct repeat of 1982.  From his angry tones in his first
exchanges with his daughter, through to the moment when he shouted
'There sir, stop' out of horror as his daughter was about to be embraced
by his erstwhile enemy in Act 5, much seemed to be simply carried over
from his earlier reading, though, to my ear at least, without quite the
conviction that the younger man had been able to bring to the desire to
get his dukedom back.  And whereas in 1982 he had delivered 'Our revels
now are ended' with a quiet intensity, as if appalled at the recognition
of the limits of art's power, now he simply went for anger and shouted
his way through the speech.  This meant that the powerful 1982 contrast
with the next set-piece, the 'Ye elves' speech, which follows so quickly
afterwards, though he again managed an effective crescendo as he
celebrated his magic powers before renouncing them, was rather too much
in the same tone of voice.  But then, though he was given a substantial
magic cloak, his magic power seemed somehow less central to his reading
than it had in 1982.

That production was visually extremely striking - though some then found
Maria Bjornson's setting, dominated by the wrecked hulk of a ship, too
overpowering.  Here the stage was divided into two levels, with a
cracked and decaying proscenium arch set across the width of the stage
half way back.  (Perhaps the visual rhyme with the Old Vic's proscenium
arch was potentially more effective than it might have been at the
production's original staging in the round at the Crucible Theatre in
Sheffield.)  But if this seemed to be suggesting a reading of the play
in terms of meta-theatre, it signally failed to emerge elsewhere in the
production.  The idea remained just that, an undeveloped conceit - very
different, say, from Mendes's (or Strehler's) exploration of this
potential in the play.

In short, despite the lavish critical praise of the clarity and
swiftness of the production - which it certainly did have - it seemed to
me rather a journeyman effort, an underimagined vehicle for an
undoubtedly fine actor, who yet had not, it seems, been much encouraged
to revisit and rethink the play or his interpretation of the part.  But
then, it's perhaps time for me to give The Tempest a rest....

David Lindley
University of Leeds

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David M Richman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 25 Feb 2003 07:06:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 14.0349 Review of The Tempest at the Old Vic
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0349 Review of The Tempest at the Old Vic

Let me add a word on Derek Jacobi' performance as Prospero at the Old
Vic in London.  I am in London for the year, directing a study abroad
program, and thus privileged to go to a number of Shakespearean
productions.  (I prefer words like "response" or "account" to "review,"
and I count myself as neither an academic nor a professional reviewer.
That said, it was clear to my ear the Jacobi chose to portray an
anguished, angry Prospero.  Jacobi's voice was deliberately distorted
throughout by fury.  He kept exclusively to his upper register.  There
are times when he was almost painful to listen to.  This went well, I
think, with Prospero's knotty syntax and agitated rhythms.  Then, at the
end, Jacobi turned his back on the audience, broke his staff, dropped
the pieces to the stage (one could hear them fall) then came right
downstage, as close to the audience as he could get, and, speaking for
the first time softly and in his natural baritone register, said "Please
you, draw near."  The house lights came up and, again, in his natural
voice, Jacobi spoke the epilogue.  I know that it is against all good
post-modern tenets to feel strong emotion, and to admit that one feels
strong emotion is taken for a sign of weakness or vacuity.  I was very
near tears as I heard that epilogue, after the fury of the performance.

One other point that drew my attention:  every time the characters were
called upon to trust each other, the production contrived to express
doubt.  When Miranda said to Prospero "Are not you my father?" one could
hear the doubt and growing terror in her voice.  There was an implied
denial, at least a question, in Prospero's "Thy mother was a piece of
virtue."  Relations among Prospero, Ariel and Caliban were infinitely
complex.  No politically correct tendentiousness here; Caliban was
slave/victim and potential rapist.  His gusto on the "Would it had been
done" speech, contemplating the near-violation of Miranda was one of the
show's memorable bits.  So was the real lyric beauty in "The isle is
full of noises."  The production did not equivocate or gloss over the
play's many moral complexities and ambiguities.  Let me end with another
favorite moment:  Ariel says, "Do you love me master?"  Then, after a
deliberately protracted pause, he adds the line-completing word "no"
making the word a question, interrogatively lifting his voice.
Prospero's "Dearly my delicate Ariel" doesn't necessarily ring with
sincerity, and there is a note of anger, at least disappointment, in
Ariel's "Well, I conceive." When Ariel walks off at the end, free, there
may be expected, but there is not given, a moment of acknowledgment.

All in all, I found this a troubling production of a troubling play.

David Richman

_______________________________________________________________
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: Henry VIII

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0357 Tuesday, 25 February 2003

[1]     From:   John V. Knapp <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Feb 2003 12:39:09 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Response to Re: SHK 14.0352 Three Questions in Re. Henry VIII

[2]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Feb 2003 21:09:01 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0352 Three Questions in Re. Henry VIII

[3]     From:   Candace Lines <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Feb 2003 17:21:26 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.0352 Three Questions in Re. Henry VIII

[4]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 25 Feb 2003 09:31:27 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0352 Three Questions in Re. Henry VIII


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John V. Knapp <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Feb 2003 12:39:09 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: SHK 14.0352 Three Questions in Re. Henry VIII
Comment:        Response to Re: SHK 14.0352 Three Questions in Re. Henry VIII

Dear Christine --

While I cannot authoritatively answer two of your questions, I will try
to assay the middle one -- but in American terms (as an unrepentant
colonist).  The current Bush administration's Cabinet is rather like a
Privy Council -- advising the President on all sorts of matters, foreign
and domestic. Thus far, after two years of advice, it is now only
moderately difficult to decide whether such advice belongs in a Privy
Chamber or no.  Indeed, most of our cousins would concur that such
decision-making poses no difficulty at all, and I am confident that in
2004, there will be a new Privy council and the current one will be
consigned, even in Florida, to its rightful place in that great Privy
Chamber of our leader's father's Privy council.

Cheers,
JVK

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Feb 2003 21:09:01 -0000
Subject: 14.0352 Three Questions in Re. Henry VIII
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0352 Three Questions in Re. Henry VIII

>1. Does anyone have a listserv address for Renaissance studies?

I don't think there is a straight answer to this (I'd love to hear of
one myself) -- the closest is probably the Ficino list:

http://www.library.utoronto.ca/crrs/main/ficino.htm

... a bit weighted towards NeoLatinists, but it does wander into English
sometimes. 18L sometimes overlaps, too.

>2. What is the difference between a Privy Council and a Privy Chamber?

Depends on where you live -- not to be invidious, at the moment the
distinction in Britain between a Privy Council, a Privy Chamber, and a
simple Privy is mute.

Robin Hamilton

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Candace Lines <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Feb 2003 17:21:26 -0500
Subject: 14.0352 Three Questions in Re. Henry VIII
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.0352 Three Questions in Re. Henry VIII

1) I recommend the Ficino listserv. I believe you can subscribe by
sending an email to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., subject line blank,
with the message "Subscribe Ficino." Then the list moderator will get
back to you with the form.

2) The Privy Chamber is, in its most literal sense, a room-a sort of
antechamber to the royal bedroom, in which the king could meet with his
closest friends and advisors. The Privy Chamber has a staff, headed by
the Groom of the Stool, who attend to the royal body and also, very
unofficially, advise the king. The Privy Council is the official body of
advisors (basically independent of the larger Council, though membership
can overlap) that, under Thomas Cromwell in the 1530s, grew out of the
unofficial Privy Chamber system. David Starkey has written a lot about
the Privy Chamber, and I think G. R. Elton also discusses it, though I
forget in which book.

3) My sense of Alison Weir is that she writes popular histories rather
than scholarly ones. I think the standard scholarly biography of Henry
VIII is still the one by Scarisbrick (called, conveniently, Henry VIII)
although if there's a newer one I'd be glad to hear about it.

Cheers,
Candace Lines
Howard University
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 25 Feb 2003 09:31:27 -0000
Subject: 14.0352 Three Questions in Re. Henry VIII
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0352 Three Questions in Re. Henry VIII

>2. What is the difference between a Privy Council and a Privy Chamber?

The Privy Chamber simply means "the private bedroom". It is the most
intimate space around the sovereign. The Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber
are a group of 48 attendants upon the sovereign, who help with
preparations for progresses, and more intimate matters. They are rather
like personal assistants, I suppose. They do not have a political role,
as such. The Privy Chamber was set up by Henry VII. David Starkey is the
authority on this aspect of the early-modern royal court. See his PhD
thesis, "The King's Privy Chamber" (Cambridge 1973); and "Representation
through Intimacy", in I. M. Lewis, ed., Symbols and Sentiments (1977).

The Privy Council is the panel of advisers to the sovereign on the
highest matters of state. Their role is now largely discharged by the
cabinet, various committees, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council (actually a court) - although the Privy Council still exists
(and has well over 400 members!), it is largely "ceremonial", for want
of a better word, but still has the right to advise the sovereign on
matters of state (and still includes members of the cabinet - so there
is considerable overlap).  In the early-modern period it was the chief
advisory and executive arm of the constitution. It was made up of past
and present ministers of state, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the
Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (i.e. the "law Lords"), the Lord Chief
Justice, the archbishops, the Princes of blood, and various appointees
of the sovereign. The best introduction to the subject is perhaps
Chapter 2 of G. R. Elton's The Stuart Constitution: documents and
commentary (Cambridge 1968), pp.87-115; his Tudor Revolution in
Government (Cambridge 1953) is still worth considering, too.

Although it is outside this period, G. E. Aylmer's classic The King's
Servants: the Civil Service of Charles I 1625-1642 (London 1961) should
not be overlooked.

>3. How are books by Alison Weir regarded by scholars of the Renaissance?

They aren't, basically. Her books tend to be based on out-dated
secondary research, often clumsily handled. As an example - her
Elizabeth The Queen, published in 1998, appears to have an exhaustive
bibliography, but it does not contain a single title from the 1990s, a
golden decade in the historiography of Elizabethan England.

Still, they are not badly written - if a little breathless at times.

martin

_______________________________________________________________
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.