2003

Re: Notolycus

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0627  Tuesday, 1 April 2003

From:           Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 31 Mar 2003 11:45:43 -0500
Subject: Notolycus
Comment:        SHK 14.0617 Notolycus

Graham Hall notes that a recent Cambridge production of WT deleted
Autolycus entirely. Of course. Crass insouciance, confidently fostered,
is the common coin of that quarter. But Autolycus remains the fulcrum of
Shakespeare's play.  Simon Forman's eye-witness account of a performance
the Globe Theatre in 1611 devotes almost a third of its length to him.
Even Dr Johnson grasped the point. His account of the play mentions no
other character but Autolycus, whom he describes as 'very naturally
conceived and strongly represented'.

T. Hawkes

_______________________________________________________________
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: By Jove!

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0626  Tuesday, 1 April 2003

From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 31 Mar 2003 23:02:34 -0500
Subject: 14.0611 Re: By Jove!
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0611 Re: By Jove!

My first edition OED gives as the earliest citation for "By Jove" R.
B.'s *Appius and Virginia* (1575).  Shakespeare uses it in LLL, TGV,AWW,
H5, TRO, COR, ANT,CYN, PER -  as you can see, it's more likely to occur
in plays with classical settings, but still common enough in the
others.  Of the 4 non-classical plays, TGV and AWW  first appeared in
the Folio, where they would have come under the prohibition against
using "By God".

Divinely,
David Evett

_______________________________________________________________
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: Heminge and Condell

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0624  Tuesday, 1 April 2003

From:           Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 31 Mar 2003 16:51:36 -0500
Subject: 14.0614 Re: Heminge and Condell
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0614 Re: Heminge and Condell

>"Seems pretty clear to me", states Mr Grumman (24 March) on the subject
>of editorship of the First Folio and so absolves himself of the horrible
>anxieties of one of those irritating inconveniences of uncertainty that
>so beset Shakespearean studies. I applaud his clarity of vision in such
>an opaque world and wish I possessed such faith. Disappointingly there
>is nothing that I can see that supports his contention.

Let's go to what I said AND to what it referred to, which Mr. Hall
conveniently neglects to do.

Greg said Heminges and Condell "say nothing to make us believe that they
personally performed the arduous duty of detailed supervision."

This statement of Greg's is nonsense.  True, they did not specifically
state that "they personally performed the arduous duty of detailed
supervision." But consider what they said (and I quoted):

"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;"

Sure, if you want to work Heminges and Condell out of the picture, you
can assume they were not referring to themselves here as the departed
author's friends.  However, you cannot claim they could NOT have been
referring to themselves.  Indeed, that is the most probable
interpretation by far.  But even if they were not referring to
themselves, they could be taken as having been-- which is SOMETHING to
make a sane person believe they personally "performed the arduous duty
of detailed supervision."

They went on to say: "But it is not our province, who onely gather his
works and give them to you, to praise him. . . . "  signed, John
Heminge  --
Henrie Condell

So they were clearly talking about themselves, and saying they had
gathered the works, and put them into the folio.

In their next preface they said, "what delight is in (the plays they've
collected) may be euer your L.L.  (your lordships, the dedicatees) the
reputation his (Shakespeare's) and (n.b.) the faults ours."

I put that note well in because Heminges and Condell here claim that the
faults are theirs.  How could that be if they didn't do the bulk of the
editorial work?

Again I say, "Seems pretty clear to me."  By which I mean that Heminges
and Condell give plenty of reason to believe that they "personally
performed the arduous duty of detailed supervision."  Which doesn't mean
they actually did, because they could have been lying.

I would add that the suggestion that they had no known editorial
experience is pretty irrelevant: they knew the plays.

--Bob G.

_______________________________________________________________
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: Critical Encounters of the Negative Kind

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0625  Tuesday, 1 April 2003

[1]     From:   Ted Dykstra <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 31 Mar 2003 14:04:15 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0613 Re: Critical Encounters of the Negative Kind

[2]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 1 Apr 2003 01:47:37 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0613 Re: Critical Encounters of the Negative Kind

[3]     From:   Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 31 Mar 2003 17:32:01 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0613 Re: Critical Encounters of the Negative Kind


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ted Dykstra <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 31 Mar 2003 14:04:15 EST
Subject: 14.0613 Re: Critical Encounters of the Negative Kind
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0613 Re: Critical Encounters of the Negative Kind

Sam Small:

>There are only 6 things of earthy importance.  Love, sex, water, food,
>shelter and storytelling.  Shakespeare re-told ancient stories that were
>already part of the cultural organics.  Stories that warned of the evil
>and gloried in the good.  That good should always triumph over the evil
>one is what people need to see in order to maintain an optimistic bias
>for suffering the slings and arrows of life.  That Shakespeare's stories
>are told with high poetry and high literary skill is interesting,
>thrilling, intellectually taxing and entertaining - but in the end mere
>vanity.  The story's the thing and always will be.

Good thinking, Sam. And while we're at it, here's one that really gets
my goat: all this nonsense about Beethoven being such a big deal and he
just used the same twelve notes everybody else used. The scale's the
thing and always will be. Power to the uninspired! Long live the roots
of genius and shame on the geniuses - vain, glory seeking selfish people
that they are!  Those stories and scales are enough for me and Sam.

Ted Dykstra

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 1 Apr 2003 01:47:37 +0100
Subject: 14.0613 Re: Critical Encounters of the Negative Kind
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0613 Re: Critical Encounters of the Negative Kind

Sam Small writes:

>There are only 6 things of earthy importance.  Love, sex, water, food,
>shelter and storytelling.

What about death?  And didn't someone (Yeats?) collapse this to simply
sex and death shouted through a megaphone?

(Or was that Beckett?)

Robin Hamilton

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 31 Mar 2003 17:32:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 14.0613 Re: Critical Encounters of the Negative Kind
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0613 Re: Critical Encounters of the Negative Kind

An interesting and, indeed sometimes, an unanswerable question. But I
like David Evett's observations and especially his example of Keats. He
was a poet that never received any particular critical instruction but
learned his art from observance and from imitation. Of course, Leigh
Hunt and Haydon encouraged him. But the critics, the intellectual elite
of their day, abhorred him and lumped him into what they called "the
Cockney school" of poetry, due to his humble and liberal origins. When
Keats met Wordsworth, he was disappointed to learn how removed he had
become from his initial revolutionary stirrings and the smug disdain he
used to describe his poetry.  In other words, the establishment always
discourages the new and the innovatory. Wordsworth was at one time the
innovator; he became the establishment. With few exceptions, this is the
case. The same happened with Shakespeare himself. Was he not accused
early in his career of wearing other poet's feathers and thinking
himself the only Shake-scene in the country? If we apply the criteria
that what is perceived as mediocre should be banned to oblivion, then
the establishment wins, art becomes product, and nothing innovatory ever
happens. We would not have Keats (we very nearly didn't have him).

Of course, the wonderful thing about art is that whatever people say
about it or what they qualify it as, one thing remains true: it is
resilient. It is resilient because it is the truth told from a certain
point of view. And that is what Keats would have called beauty.

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: Heminge and Condell

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0623  Tuesday, 1 April 2003

[1]     From:   John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 31 Mar 2003 11:24:17 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0614 Re: Heminge and Condell

[2]     From:   Holger Schott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 31 Mar 2003 18:33:59 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0614 Re: Heminge and Condell


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 31 Mar 2003 11:24:17 -0500
Subject: 14.0614 Re: Heminge and Condell
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0614 Re: Heminge and Condell

Everybody knows that the First Folio was actually edited by William
Cecil, who had faked his own death and departed into Austrian exile in
order to work out his new theory of kinetics, which was finally
published posthumously under the obvious pseudonym of "Isaac New-ton".

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Holger Schott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 31 Mar 2003 18:33:59 -0500
Subject: 14.0614 Re: Heminge and Condell
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0614 Re: Heminge and Condell

I'm not sure I understand at all what the case for Jonson's role as
so-called "editor" of the 1623 folio rests on. So far, anything that's
been offered is pure conjecture -- why should Malone have any authority
in a question like this? As far as I know, this is not a case where he
had access to documents that have since been mysteriously lost. The mere
presence of references to Pliny and Horace seems flimsy evidence at
best.

And what exactly do critics who think of Jonson as Shakespeare's
"editor" mean by that term? I can see how it might be meaningful when
used in discussions of books such as Jonson's own 1616 _Workes_, with
their relatively uniform layout, their innovative re-shaping of plays
for print, etc. -- none of which, however, we find in the 1623 folio.
What, then, do we suppose these "editors" did?

Unconvinced,
Holger

_______________________________________________________________
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.