2003

Re: Shakespeare Newsletter 52:4

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0767  Thursday, 24 April 2003

From:           Tom Pendleton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 12:36:53 -0400
Subject: 14.0761 Shakespeare Newsletter 52:4
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.0761 Shakespeare Newsletter 52:4

Again thanks to Mike for his posting, and again contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. if
you'd like a sample copy.

Tom Pendleton
Co-Editor, The Shakespeare Newsletter

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Dicky number too

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0766  Thursday, 24 April 2003

From:           Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 15:10:14 +0000
Subject:        Dicky number too

Nancy Charlton (22 Apr 2003)

"[...]  Last year we discussed the significance of the number "three,"
....says she.

>"I waited ages for a devil and three came along at once." , says I.

What did I tell you? [...] says she.

Well, this was a glance at the common saying "You wait AGES for bus and
then three come at once" but the Wilderness episode context seemed
appropriate with the judean connection of the original phrase. (Part of
the joke is that my local bus route is number 6.  However, I didn't want
to attract N. E . More complaints about the export of arcane eastern
knowledge to the west.)

N.E.Morefares-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: The Public Theater's AS YOU LIKE IT

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0764  Thursday, 24 April 2003

[1]     From:   Ben Spiller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 15:06:09 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0757 Re: The Public Theater's AS YOU LIKE IT

[2]     From:   Michael Shurgot <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 11:57:10 -0700
        Sub:    RE: SHK 14.0757 Re: The Public Theater's AS YOU LIKE IT


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ben Spiller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 15:06:09 +0100
Subject: 14.0757 Re: The Public Theater's AS YOU LIKE IT
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0757 Re: The Public Theater's AS YOU LIKE IT

I am in contact with the director of the recent Sheffield Crucible
"Macbeth", James Phillips, who has sent me the script, edited initially
by himself and then altered throughout rehearsals with the cast.
Although I didn't manage to catch the production, the script certainly
makes for an enlightening read.  The witches are reworked as children
who play with china dolls, and Banquo's ghost wears a mask similar to
the faces of the dolls.  The cutting does not seem to be blunt and
careless, but carefully executed to produce a new script, which,
although critics will inevitably compare to the 1620 Folio, should
probably be seen as a text in its own right -- a version, reworking or
off-shoot from the play as it was recorded by the compositors of F1.  I
envy Mr Zull, who must have experienced an extremely intense performance
(four actors, minimal design, no interval) of a pared-down version of an
already short and thrilling play.  Did anyone else see it?

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Shurgot
 <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 11:57:10 -0700
Subject: 14.0757 Re: The Public Theater's AS YOU LIKE IT
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.0757 Re: The Public Theater's AS YOU LIKE IT

Dear Colleagues:

Don Bloom's trouble with very small cast productions of a WS play is
understandable, although I do not wish to minimize the abilities of
talented actors to engage the imaginations of their spectators in many
and enchanting ways. However, as I have mentioned previously on this
list serve, excessive and unconvincing doubling/tripling of roles was
one of the major problems with the Oregon Shakespeare Festival's Macbeth
in 2002. Some of the role switching was silly because the same actor was
unable to convince spectators that s/he "embodied" two or three totally
different characters: e.g.: Fleance one moment and one of Macbeth's
hired thugs the next. We should all try to respect actors' efforts, and
be accommodating and imaginative in our responses to a production's
choices, but I would agree that at times credibility is strained so much
that the production--like a too taut string--snaps.

Regards,
Michael Shurgot

_______________________________________________________________
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: One Name, Two Personages

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0765  Thursday, 24 April 2003

[1]     From:   Cliff Ronan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 09:59:16 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages

[2]     From:   Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 11:28:02 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages

[3]     From:   Tom Pendleton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 12:31:13 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages

[4]     From:   Friedman Michael <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 15:20:51 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Cliff Ronan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 09:59:16 -0500
Subject: 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages

David Evett,

There are probably no other character names in a single play unless we
count Lord Bardolph and Falstaff's Bardolph in 2 Henry IV.

Best regards,
Cliff Ronan

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 11:28:02 -0400
Subject: 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages

David Evett asked:

>In any case, can
>anybody on the list point to another instance in the canon where two
>clearly different personages in the same play have the same name?

Shooting fish in a barrel, of course...I was in a reading of Comedy of
Errors, and somebody asked WHY anybody would be dumb enough to give two
sets of twins the same name, That stumped me, so "Shut up," I explained.

Dana Shilling

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Pendleton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 12:31:13 -0400
Subject: 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages

Dear David

In JC, Flavius is a tribune in 1.1 and in 5.4 one of Brutus's
followers--opening SD only; he has no lines. Two other close
ones--Balthasar is both the name Portia assumes and the name of one of
her servants, and in 2H4 there is both a Bardolph and a Lord Bardolph.
Twins probably shouldn't count, but Olivia does at various times call
both Viola and Sebastian Cesario. And for a possible counter-example--if
Falstaff's page in 2H4 and H5 is the Robin of MWW (and I think he is),
he's probably Robin because four other people have Page as a surname.

Tom Pendleton

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Friedman Michael <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 15:20:51 -0400
Subject: 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages

I believe I can think of an example of this phenomenon.  In *Two Gents*,
Julia and Lucetta discuss one of Julia's suitors, the "fair Sir
Eglamour."  A character by the same name later appears as a trusted
friend of Silvia, but there is no indication whether this figure was
also Julia's suitor in the beginning of the play.

Michael Friedman
University of Scranton

_______________________________________________________________
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: The Strachey Letter

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0763  Wednesday, 23 April 2003

[1]     From:   John Zuill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 22 Apr 2003 18:32:08 -0300
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0756 The Strachey Letter

[2]     From:   John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 22 Apr 2003 18:54:32 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0756 The Strachey Letter

[3]     From:   Ira Zinman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 22 Apr 2003 23:44:02 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0756 The Strachey Letter


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Zuill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 22 Apr 2003 18:32:08 -0300
Subject: 14.0756 The Strachey Letter
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0756 The Strachey Letter

>Sir William Somers to Virginia in the summer of 1609

Um, that has to wrong. I am Bermudian and we all grew up knowing it was
George Somers.

John Zuill

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 22 Apr 2003 18:54:32 -0400
Subject: 14.0756 The Strachey Letter
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0756 The Strachey Letter

Elliott H. Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> continues his "stealth" Oxfordian
rant.

>However, those that would claim that Shakespeare was a common plagiarist
>have recently received a good thrashing, as well they should, by that
>careful scholar Brian Vickers.

It is one of the most thoroughly established facts about Shakespeare
that he regularly performed acts that would be regarded as plagiarism
today.  Or is it a further part of your contention that Holinshed's
Chronicles, North's edition of Plutarch, "Pandosto", "The Palace of
Pleasure" (not to mention the "Decameron"), etc., etc., were, all of
them, based on Shakespeare's plays and falsely back-dated as part of the
Great Oxfordian Coverup?

>Was William Strachey a competent poet or writer capable of the wonderful
>descriptions that appear in the letter? Wasn't Strachey a convicted
>swindler, a liar, a traitor, a bankrupt and a man who plagiarized from
>all the leading explorers in the New World i.e. Raleigh and Smith?
>Wasn't he the man that the Stationer's Company forced to return his
>profits on his early sight seeing book on France to the original writer?
>Was he not the man that reopened the Children's Theater after it was
>closed by the Crown and its true owner had fled to the continent? (Is
>this the man who wrote the terrible versification of the satire known as
>THE ELEGY BY W.S.?) Is this the man we are to believe that Shakespeare
>used as a mentor!

No-one, of course, has ever said any such thing.  What has been claimed
is that Shakespeare used William Strachey's "True Reportory of the
Wrack, and Redemption of Sir Thomas Gates Knight.", in combination with
Sylvester Jourdain's "A Discovery of the Barmudas" and the anonymous "A
True Declaration of the Estate of the Colonie in Virginia" as source
material for "The Tempest".  The close parallels, not only verbal, but
also -- and far more importantly -- in the nature and succession of
incidents, have been listed by David Joseph Kathman in "Dating 'The
Tempest'", at http://www.shakespeareauthorship.com/tempest.html

>It seems more than likely that Strachey was the plagiarizer and the
>thief. Is it not true that his letter was used by him to BLACKMAIL the
>shareholders of The Virginia Company? I suggest that the Strachey letter
>be run through a computer program to determine if it truly has his DNA
>or that of Shakespeare's? The hard part will be trying to find anything
>that is truly Strachey's and not stolen literary property!

Yet _all_ the accounts of the wreck of the Sea-Venture are in
substantial agreement with each other, and with "The Tempest".

>The likely scenario is that Jonson was editing the First Folio

Unsupported supposition #1

>and gave
>his business partner William Strachey some material to use to help him
>stave off his creditors and his pending incarceration in Debtor's
>Prison!

Unsupported supposition #2

> There is no doubt that the First Folio contains material from
> the Jacobean period, added after earlier staging,

Unsupported supposition #3

>that may refer to
>topical events like the Bermuda shipwreck. There is nothing new about my
>view. This was the view of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Mark Twain and Herman
>Melville all men who understood a little bit about writing and literary
>criticism.

...and nothing to speak of about Jacobean social or literary history.

I've already rumbled you.  Kindly take your anti-Stratfordian fantasies
back to news:humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare, where they belong.
They're not wanted here.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ira Zinman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 22 Apr 2003 23:44:02 EDT
Subject: 14.0756 The Strachey Letter
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0756 The Strachey Letter

I am mystified at the emphasis placed on the Tempest being based, at
least in part on the ship wreck described by Strachey or any other
wrecks for that matter, and there were many.  The heart and Soul of the
Tempest, it seems, has to do more with relationship of the two brothers
and the forgiveness afforded by Prospero, and many other underlying,
overt and more esoteric themes.

The wreck of Sir Thomas Gates ship and the survival in the Bermudas is
one of many tragedies at sea and rescues at sea.  What have they to do
with the deposed Prospero being set adrift with his young daughter.  I
understand the dating of the Tempest has become an incessant issue with
the authorship debate and who wrote what when.  But the survival of the
Gates vessel in reality has little to do with the important themes in
the Tempest don't you think?  It seems a creative mind like
Shakespeare's could have manufactured a shipwreck scenario with or
without Strachey's story.

Regards,
Ira

_______________________________________________________________
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.