2003

Re: King John Date

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0580  Monday, 24 March 2003

From:           Roger Parisious <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 21 Mar 2003 12:42:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 14.0569 Re: King John Date
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0569 Re: King John Date

>Roger Parisious wrote:
>
>>And, by the way, the possibility was  raised with
>care, but not argued,
>>in my last communication that "King John" dates
>pretty much as we have
>>it from around l587. If so, Shakespeare was
>technically well in control
>>of himself six years before he published "Venus and
>Adonis".
>
>John Briggs writes:
>
>>I should point out that such an early date for
>"King John" is not
>>accepted these days.  The general consensus seems
>to be c.1595, even if
>>the date has been plucked out of thin air!  In any
>case, the copy for
>>the Folio text seems to be a transcript and may be
>a late theatrical
>>one.
>
>While I would say that 1587 is too early for King
>John because there are
>so many other plays that Shakespeare has to have
>written before he
>tackled it, there is certainly no consensus that
>c.1595 is the answer.
>That's the date suggested in Braunmuller's Oxford
>edition. I've argued
>(in 'The case for the earlier canon' in
>Shakespearean Continuities:
>Essays in Honour of E.A.J. Honigmann, John
>Batchelor, Tom Cain, Claire
>Lamont (eds.) London and New York: Macmillan, 1997)
>that the play
>probably dates from c. 1590 as does Lester Beaurline
>in his Cambridge
>edition (1990).
>
>It is inconceivable that the author of Troublesome
>Reign (published
>1591) could have invented the character of the
>Bastard unaided by
>previous example. That author doesn't understand the
>dramaturgical
>reasons for creating such an a-historical character.
>He and his printer
>do know, however, that the character is essential
>for marketing
>purposes. Audiences are not going to be flocking to
>see TR's Bastard. If
>the character is marketable he is so only in
>Shakespeare's version.
>Shakespeare's version therefore has to be on the
>stage before TR is
>published.
>
>Ros

I appreciate Mr. King's argument and look forward to reading his essay.

However, his further comments bring us back to J.M.Robertson's position
to which I alluded on the Titus thread. Robertson and Mrs Eva Turner
Clark (following Robertson) are almost unique in the 20th century in
pointing out that the successive run of MND, King John, I Henry IV, and
the first two Acts of Henry IV Part II contain the lowest percentage of
double endings in the Canon. The four plays start at something over five
per cent for A Dream and are around nine per cent for the opening acts
of Henry IV, Part II. At this point they suddenly zoom up to most of
twenty per cent and never come down again for the rest of the poet's
career.

From Robertson's point of view, the answer was simple. He took the
dedication to Venus and Adonis literally as "the first heir of my
invention", put the Dream in l594 and proceed with one virtually unique
work a year until Shakespeare belatedly adopts the double ending while
revising Henry IV, Part II, about the time of the Cobham scandal. This
meant that the use of the double ending in English dramatic verse was
virtually  created by Marlowe and Greene in their later works and that
most of the earliest Shakespeare work is low double ending work
inserted at the request of his management over unfinished or
superannuated material by the last named gentlemen, Kyd and Peele.

Clark(l931) was the first critic to realize that one could avoid
Robertson's inevitable and disconcerting conclusion by the simple
expedient of moving the low double endings sequence en bloc  back to the
second half of the l580's.Unfortunately she could not synthesize this
eminently sensible perception of the metre problem with the rest of her
chronology,which was in no way based on metrical considerations.

As Nashe refers to an Oldcastle play which sounds suspiciously like the
one we know in l593,it could be then argued that the raise of the double
ending rate dates from a revision four to six years after the original
composition(1588-l589) but nearly simultaneous with Lucrece.

_______________________________________________________________
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: Late Elizabethan/Jacobean Query

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0579  Monday, 24 March 2003

From:           Chris Ferns <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 21 Mar 2003 12:19:05 -0400
Subject: 14.0533 Late Elizabethan/Jacobean Query
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0533 Late Elizabethan/Jacobean Query

> I'm probably going to include The
>Revenger's Tragedy, The Changling, Duchess of Malfi (perhaps The White
>Devil as well), 'Tis Pity She's a Whore, The Alchemist and perhaps one or
>two others. I actually have two questions:  1) what editions (either in
>anthologies or single editions) of these plays would you suggest

All these plays are to be found in the Norton Anthology of English
Renaissance Drama, ed. Bevington, Engle, Maus, Rasmussen. New York, 2002
- along with a wide choice of other dramatic texts.

Chris Ferns
Mount Saint Vincent University

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Pop Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0577  Monday, 24 March 2003

[1]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 21 Mar 2003 14:21:53 -0000
        Subj:   SHK 14.0564 Pop Shakespeare

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 21 Mar 2003 12:50:36 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.0564 Pop Shakespeare

[3]     From:   Jennifer Drouin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 22 Mar 2003 12:23:31 -0500
        Subj:   Re: Bollywood Shakespop


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 21 Mar 2003 14:21:53 -0000
Subject: Pop Shakespeare
Comment:        SHK 14.0564 Pop Shakespeare

"Incidentally, is there any doubt that Shakespeare, had he lived later,
would have written musicals?"

Yes - he left that up to Jonson, and criticized his efforts in The
Tempest.

martin

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 21 Mar 2003 12:50:36 -0400
Subject: 14.0564 Pop Shakespeare
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.0564 Pop Shakespeare

Don Bloom asks,

>Incidentally, is there any doubt that Shakespeare, had he lived later,
>would have written musicals?

Since he didn't live later, the answer is obviously 'yes'.

Yours,
Sean.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jennifer Drouin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 22 Mar 2003 12:23:31 -0500
Subject:        Re: Bollywood Shakespop

Richard Burt wrote:

>Jennifer is far more generous to the film than I am.  [snip]
>As I believe I made clear, I think the film is a piece of crap,
>regardless of Mehta's earlier films, which I confess I have not seen.

My generosity towards the film comes precisely from seeing Mehta's
previous work, _Fire_.  I find it impossible that any director who made
_Fire_ could make this film without the same socio-political investment.
On the other hand, stranger things have been known to happen, and given
how she got burned (no pun intended) making _Water_, perhaps she simply
wanted to go commercial and raise some cash for other projects. I
haven't read the interviews and don't know her motivations, but the same
thing happened here in Quebec. Pierre Falardeau couldn't get federal
funding to make _15 fevrier 1839_, so he went out and made _Elvis
Gratton 2_ which had commercial appeal and raised enough money for him
to make the film he really wanted to make.  It could be the same
phenomenon, in which case my generosity is overstretched.

>This is not to say that one shouldn't talk about it, of course.  But I
>see no point in trying to save it by saying, in effect, that it mimes
>the supposedly sly and subversive mimicry articulated by post-colonial
>theorists like Homi Bhaba.  It seems to me, in any case, that Jennifer's
>defense of the film is a version of the mimetic fallacy--to make a film
>criticizing bad films, you have to make a bad film.

Point taken. The film definitely could have been better. However, I
don't think this discounts entirely the presence of the postcolonial
element. To me, it's clearly still there, although I admit that it could
have been conveyed more effectively if the rest of the film were better.
But Mehta does the poco critique in _Earth_, and most people haven't
seen that (including myself, yet). I think it comes down to questions of
audience, which again leads back to the Hollywood debate. Pick an
obvious signifier of India's colonization, Shakespeare, dumb it down and
convey the message as minimally as possible, but reach a much wider
audience than the better made films ever did. A lousy trade-off
artistically, but a sure bet in terms of audience.

Don Bloom wrote:

>On the one hand, I'm not sure I can recall ANY Hollywood musicals set in
>English fields of green. What is she thinking of here?

Not Hollywood with a "h". I had written Bollywood with a "b", the Indian
film industry, not the American one. Muscial scenes in the English
countryside are apparently almost mandatory features of Bollywood films,
and are ridiculous in the sense that one doesn't find wide-open, green,
English country fields in India. Not only is the image drastically out
of place both geographically and in terms of the aesthetic landscape of
India, but it also harks back to colonialist values that England is
inherently "better" than India, as if one couldn't fall in love anywhere
other than England (which, come to think of it, gives a whole new
meaning to the phrase "Lie back and think of England.").

>On the other, I can't see why there is something innately ridiculous
>about setting a musical (a notably fantastical form) in any given
>locale. Which are the acceptable locales, and which are the ridiculous
>ones.

Personally, I think spontaneously breaking into song in any locale is
always somewhat ridiculous, but that was not the point I was making. The
juxtaposition of India with the English countryside, and the
juxtaposition of both of those with a concrete condo against the Toronto
skyline is the source of the film's parody, not the musical genre per se
(although one could read it that way as well, especially given how often
the film employs the musical). It's the juxtaposition of locales which
is ridiculous, and it just happens that the musical outbursts are the
tip-offs which tune us in to those juxtapositions.

>Incidentally, is there any doubt that Shakespeare, had he lived later,
>would have written musicals?

Couldn't we argue that he did? Many of Shakespeare's comedies employ
spontaneous musical outbursts. There are songs in Twelfth Night, Much
Ado, The Winter's Tale, Antony and Cleopatra (and many more plays I'm
sure which don't immediately pop to mind). To a certain degree, can't we
say that those songs which intervene mid-play are precurseurs to the
contemporary musical?  I don't think it's true, of course, but wouldn't
it be ironic if that's where Bollywood derived the idea from as one more
vestige of colonialism....

Jennifer Drouin

_______________________________________________________________
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: Love's Labour's Wonne

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0578  Monday, 24 March 2003

[1]     From:   John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 21 Mar 2003 16:06:48 -0000
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne

[2]     From:   Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 21 Mar 2003 15:32:39 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne

[3]     From:   Russell MacKenzie Fehr <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 22 Mar 2003 00:24:54 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne

[4]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 22 Mar 2003 11:40:49 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 21 Mar 2003 16:06:48 -0000
Subject: 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne

The secret's out:

Love's Labours Wonne is Midsummer Night's Dream, The Merry Wives of
Windsor, Measure For Measure (problem), All's Well That Ends Well, Much
Ado About Nothing etc. etc.

Mind you, whisper it noth in Gath, but Shakespeare wrote the script for
Robocop!

Cheers

John Drakakis

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 21 Mar 2003 15:32:39 -0500
Subject: 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne

>Love's Labour's Wonne... here's a wacky suggestion... and the dern thing
>is, I can't figure out if it's my own idea or if I copped it from
>somewhere. If you recognize it, please speak up as to its source.
>
>What if Love's Labour's Won is the title of the PREFALSTAFF version of
>Merry Wives of Windsor?

I like this suggestion a lot, but still hold to The Taming of the Shrew
as Loves Labours Wonne because I can't believe the Shrew could have been
written after 1598--and it also has all those references to
Shakespeare's home country, which were more common in his earlier plays,
I understand.

--Bob G.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Russell MacKenzie Fehr <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 22 Mar 2003 00:24:54 EST
Subject: 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne

>Hello All...
>
>Russell MacKenzie Fehr <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:
>
>     "...I hope for the day that a copy of "Cardenio" is found,
>     second only to "Love's Labors Won" (first if "LLW" is just an
>     alternative title for an existing Shakespearian work)"
>
>Love's Labour's Wonne... here's a wacky suggestion... and the dern thing
>is, I can't figure out if it's my own idea or if I copped it from
>somewhere. If you recognize it, please speak up as to its source.
>
>What if Love's Labour's Won is the title of the PREFALSTAFF version of
>Merry Wives of Windsor?
>
>Dover Wilson suggested that such a play existed [calling it The Jealous
>Comedy], and that when Queen Elizabeth asked for Falstaff in Love
>Shakespeare grafted Falstaff's crew onto his own pre-existent play,
>transforming a 'foolish gentleman' character and a foolish servant into
>Falstaff and Quickly, giving the foolish suitor an uncle [Shallow], and
>thrusting Bardolph, Nym, Pistol and the Page into the action as
>messengers and servants. But he didn't suggest that this play was called
>Love's Labour's Won.
>
>On the other hand, in the sweepstakes to be nominated the play for which
>LLW was an alternate title, Merry Wives is one of the leading
>contenders.  But it's always been  the extant Merry Wives as we know it
>that's been suggested to be LLW.
>
>Now combine those two suggestions... Shakespeare writes a sequel of
>sorts to Love's Labour's Lost. It doesn't use the same characters from
>LLL, but like it, it  features three couples [the Fords, the Pages and
>the youngsters], a series of wooings: a foolish gentleman woos two
>townswomen; and a young gentleman [the beloved] and a foolish rival vie
>for the hand of the young daughter of one of the townswomen. There is a
>full range comic eccentrics to populate the comic subplot[s]-- A French
>Doctor with an outrageous accent and a comic housekeeper and a foolish
>manservant; a Welsh Parson/Pedant with an outrageous accent; Mine Host
>of the Inn with an outrageous way of speaking. [To add 5 more comic
>characters -- Shallow, Bardolph, Nym, Pistol & the Page-- to something
>like this might seem too much-- how many comic eccentrics can one play
>have or need?]
>
>Now if the Falstaff version of the play was set in Windsor only because
>of its association with the Garter feast, then the play originally had
>SOME OTHER TITLE. Could that title have been Love's Labour's Won?
>Sequel-wise it continues some features from Love's Labor's Lost... The
>Fantastical Foreigner Armado leads on to the Fantastical Foreigner
>Caius;
>The Humorous Pedant  Holofernes and the Curate are combined as it were
>in the Humorous Parson/Pedant Evans. Like Love's Labour's Lost it ends
>with a quasi-dramatic event. I dunno...
>
>After the play was Falstaffized, there was no need for the Booke of the
>old version of the play, so it was sold to a printer, and a small
>edition [now completely lost] was printed. A copy of that edition was
>listed in a bookseller's inventory in 1602. Where have all the others
>gone? Hhmmm...  look in your attics?
>
>Regards,
>Bill Lloyd

Thank you for agreeing to discuss this, Mr. Lloyd, although the post in
question is different from what I originally posted. (Hardy, what did
you do to the first paragraph, where I talked about the various types of
manuscripts that Theobald's "Cardenio" could have been?)

Russell MacKenzie Fehr

[Editor's Note: I don't know what happened. Please submit the original
and I will post it. -Hardy]

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 22 Mar 2003 11:40:49 -0500
Subject: 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne

Isn't it obvious that LLW is a sequel, or second part, of LLL?  Love's
Labours Lost is unique among the comedies in that it does not end with a
marriage or betrothal.  (Armado and Jacquenetta don't count.)  Berowne
even notes, "Our wooing doth not end like and old play:/ Jack hath not
Gill." (V.ii.874-75 [Riverside]).  Instead the main characters promise
to renew their wooing in a year, after the King and Berowne undergo
various potentially amusing privations.  This internal evidence suggests
that WS intended to pick up the thread in another play.  Indeed,
Berowne's complaint, "That's too long for a play" (V.ii.878) seems close
to an advertisement to stay tuned.

The signs of rewriting at the end of the play (see IV.iii.292-313,
V.ii.817-22) leads me to a conjecture that LLL was revised after it
achieved popularity to provide a lead-in to the sequel.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Elizabeth as Magnanimous Lion

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0576  Monday, 24 March 2003

From:           Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 21 Mar 2003 07:59:56 -0600
Subject:        Elizabeth as Magnanimous Lion

Does anyone know of a pre-1589 documentary source for this anecdote
about Elizabeth I (from Puttenham's Art, which I am annotating), or for
the figure of speech in general?

. . . Nor to seek revenge upon base and obscure persons, over whom the
conquest is not glorious, nor the victory honorable, which respect
moved our sovereign Lady (keeping always the decorum of a princely
person) at her first coming to the crown, when a knight of this realm,
who had very insolently behaved himself toward her when she was Lady
Elizabeth, fell upon his knee to her and besought her pardon,
suspecting (as there was good cause) that he should have been sent to
the Tower. She said unto him most mildly, "Do you not know that we are
descended of the lion, whose nature is not to harm or prey upon the
mouse, or any other such small vermin?"

Many thanks.

Frank Whigham

_______________________________________________________________
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.