Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: March ::
Re: Heminge and Condell
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0589  Thursday, 27 March 2003

[1]     From:   Kristen McDermott <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 24 Mar 2003 09:20:57 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0584 Heminge and Condell

[2]     From:   Hugh Grady <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 25 Mar 2003 16:41:12 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.0584 Heminge and Condell

[3]     From:   Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 24 Mar 2003 10:53:35 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0584 Heminge and Condell

[4]     From:   Graham Hall <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 26 Mar 2003 09:42:45 +0000
        Subj:   On a darkling plain


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kristen McDermott <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 24 Mar 2003 09:20:57 EST
Subject: 14.0584 Heminge and Condell
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0584 Heminge and Condell

I always find it unlikely to attribute anything to Jonson that he didn't
loudly take credit for.  However, Mr. Stone's suggestion that he was the
editor of the 1623 Folio offers a tantalizing scenario for the
whereabouts for Shakespeare's long-sought "foul papers" -- Jonson's
rooms (and his library) burned in late 1623.  What if the play
manuscripts were in his possession at the time?  But I hesitate to feed
more conspiracy theories...

-- Kristen McDermott
Central Michigan University

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hugh Grady <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 25 Mar 2003 16:41:12 -0500
Subject: 14.0584 Heminge and Condell
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.0584 Heminge and Condell

 "...say nothing to make us believe...long been pointed out that it was
very unlikely....now there has been further research [unspecified]..."
As one of Shakespeare's characters put it, "...it speaks... with the
other proofs."

--Hugh Grady

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 24 Mar 2003 10:53:35 -0500
Subject: 14.0584 Heminge and Condell
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0584 Heminge and Condell

>W.W. Gregg in his monumental thesis
>the SHAKESPEARE FIRST FOLIO, as recently pointed out by W. B. Hunter in
>ANQ: vol. 15 #4 Fall 2002, asserts that the two actors in their address
>to prospective readers "say nothing to make us believe that they
>personally performed the arduous duty of detailed supervision."

Nonsense.  "It had bene a thing, we confesse, worthie to have bene
wished, that the author himselfe had liv'd to have set forth and
overseen his owne writings; but since it hath bin ordain'd otherwise,
and he by death departed from that right, we pray you do not envie his
friends the office of their
care and paine to have collected and publish'd them; and so to have
publish'd them, as where (before) you were abus'd with diverse stolne
and surreptitious copies, maimed and deformed by the frauds and
stealthes of injurious imposters that expos'd them; even those are now
offer'd to your view cur'd and perfect of their limbes, and all the rest
absolute in ther numbers as he conceived them. . . . But it is not our
province, who onely gather his works and give them to you, to praise
him. . . . "  signed, John Heminge  --  Henrie Condell

Previously they describe themselves as Shakespeare's friends, and stated
that "what delight is in (the plays they've collected) may be euer your
L.L.  (you lordships, the dedicatees) the reputation his (Shakespeare's)
and (n.b.) the faults ours."

Seems pretty clear to me.

--Bob G.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Graham Hall <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 26 Mar 2003 09:42:45 +0000
Subject:        On a darkling plain

Mr Stone rightly raises the question of who "edited" Shakespeare's
dramatic works for publication after his death. In so doing he exposes,
through a specific example, the frailty of the foundations of
Shakespearean scholarship and mirrors it alongside much of other
academic pursuit. The closer the scrutiny, the greater the discrepancy.
Which is not by way of condemnation, rather reflection. Artificial,
counterfeit and tainted facts are trafficked around the scholarly Casbah
and afforded the reverent status of holy relics in less than two hours.
Quotations are repeated, conclusions drawn on walls, and the moving
finger having writ moves on to another dusty thesis. Architecture,
biography, chronology; pyrites all, they are but trash. And we are Apes
with foreheads villainous low to buy them.

Yours, in ignorance,
Graham Hall

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail 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.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.