2003

Shakespeare Surveys

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0979  Monday, 19 May 2003

From:           Herb Weil <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 17 May 2003 10:01:22 -0500
Subject:        Shakespeare Surveys

When we move after 25 years here to Victoria at the end of May, we are
giving away many of our books. The usual lack of space and of two
English department offices.

I have been told that old Shakespeare Surveys should not be given away.
After saving favorites, I have twelve volumes, starting with #4 the last
is #29.

Any suggestions?  The libraries do not want duplicates.

Cheers,
Herb

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Hamlet Vizitations

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0978  Monday, 19 May 2003

From:           Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 May 2003 19:56:41 EDT
Subject:        Hamlet Vizitations

In his faulty 1962 publication, <Hamlet The First Quarto 1603>, Albert
B. Weiner says of Q1's version of Hamlet 2.1. 57ff:

>Another unquestionable manuscript peculiarity comes in
>sc. 6, 22.  In the speech in which Corambis sends Montano
>to spy on Laertes he says:

                           I saw him yesterday, or tother day,
      Or then, or at such a time, a dicing,
      Or at Tennis, I or drincking drunke, or entring
      Of a howse of lightnes viz. brothell.

>Surely anyone reporting this scene would never have reported
>"viz." Corambis would have said, and the reporter would have
>heard, "videlicet," the Q2-F1 reading. The abbreviation "viz."
>would probably never have even appeared in the promptbook;
>certainly it would not have appeared in Corambis' part. The
>most likely place to find such an abbreviation, it seems to
>me, would be in the author's manuscript. Authors, not actors,
>use abbreviations. (43)

These assertions are typical of Weiner's allegiance to his theme that Q1
Hamlet is not a reported text. He silently passes over corruptions (such
as "Or at Tennis," for "There falling out at Tennis,") and he ignores
the metrical irregularity of this thoroughly botched passage by printing
it as prose in his highly disguised edition of the Q1 text.

"Videlicet" is one of the most abbreviated of words; insistence that a
reporter would never resort to "viz," or that actors do "not use
abbreviations," is special pleading. However, because Weiner made an
issue of it, I've given "viz." some thought as a minor crux.

As often, Q1 at this line is unmetrical, but so are Q2 and F. The better
texts may be corrupted by "videlicet". Q2 reads:

     There falling out at Tennis, or perchance
     I saw him enter such a house of sale,
     Videlizit, a brothell, or so foorth, see you now,
     Your bait of falshood take this carpe of truth,

F is substantively the same, except for "Cape of truth", (anticipating
Superman by centuries). The spelling in Q2 suggests that "viz." was
expanded by a compositor not familiar with the Latin word, which means
something like "It is permitted to see." Harold Jenkins in his Arden 2
edition avoids metrical difficulty by printing "See you now" as a
separate line (2.1.63).

Though Jenkins omits F's addition to line 53 ("At friend, or so, and
Gentleman") as probably an actor's interpolation, he doesn't suggest
that "see you now" is added.

Van Dam, in keeping with his theme that much in Q2 is interpolated (an
opinion I largely share), corrects the line length by deleting "see you
now".

Because Polonius's speeches are filled with phrases not readily
differentiated from actor's additions, it seems unwise to edit out
passable dialogue when the verse can be corrected by other means.
Whether extra-syllabic lines need correction is a large question applied
to particular instances; in this case I assume the need -- the passage
is in verse.

Q1 does on occasion provide better readings, and "viz." may be
preferable to the expanded form. It's a matter of pronunciation. It
seems natural to me that "viz" would often have been pronounced "viz";
that even sophisticated Latinists like Polonius and Shakespeare might
say and think the short form. If so, the line spoken

     Viz a brothell or so foorth see you now,

is decasyllabic, if not drumming. I'm not sure that "brothell" was
always stressed on its first half.

Another alternative is available. Q1 has "viz. brothell", with no
article. If (as I am convinced this month) Q1 derives from a live
performance, that authority might suggest Q2's "a" is also a
compositorial expansion.

By a twist of fait, "viz." is often pronounced "namely." Without
training, one can neither know nor voice such a substitution. But how
long has this been the practice?  Perhaps a 16th century poem rhymes
"viz" with -- what rhymes with namely?  But I doubt it:

     Namely, brothell, or so foorth, see you now,

If this is the way it was said, a reporter or scribe would have been
free to convey the word as "viz.", or a shorter form, perhaps without
realizing the degree of probability that a later confusion might result.

Needless to say, had Weiner not brought the matter up, I would never
have given it a thought. The passage is of some significance because Q1
screws it up so badly.

For example, Weiner and Hubbard reorder these Q1 lines:

    I faith not a whit; no not a whit,
    Now happely hee closeth with you in the consequence,
    As you may bridle it not disparage him a iote.
    What was I about to say,

As Jenkins glosses the better texts, "closes with" means "falls in
with," but the three uses of "closeth" in Q1 make it so hard to see the
intended meaning that Kathleen Irace defines the term as "ends with," a
surprising error. It's much better to let the muddle speak for itself.

Gerald E. Downs

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Shakespeare in the Groatsworth?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0976  Monday, 19 May 2003

From:           Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 May 2003 07:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 14.0967 Shakespeare in the Groatsworth?
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0967 Shakespeare in the Groatsworth?

Bob Grumman writes, "I have little problem with the notion that
Shakespeare collaborated with Peele on Titus but think it more likely
that he was only influenced by Peele.  He may also have revised a Peele
play.  Reason: Greene in the Groatsworth warns Peele (many scholars are
agreed) to watch out for Shakespeare, which suggests Peele didn't know
Shakespeare.  But that, of course, assumes that Titus was done before
1592, which I'm sure of although I have no more factual evidence for my
belief than Vickers has for his belief in a later date for the play.
(Vickers has also stated it as a fact that Chettle wrote the
Groatsworth, based on a stylometric study he likes, so he can counter
that Chettle didn't know what he was talking about."

OK, you got me.  But I am curious, just what is this warning that Greene
gave to Peele "to watch out for Shakespeare."  Who was Greene, dates and
place, and who was Peele, dates and place, and when and where was this
"Goatsworth" written or published?  And what is the specific referent to
Shakespeare?  Can you quote it?  Thanks, in advance.

Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

_______________________________________________________________
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: Actors v Scholars

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0977  Monday, 19 May 2003

[1]     From:   Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 16 May 2003 17:17:57 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0964 Re: Actors v Scholars

[2]     From:   Tue Sorensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 17 May 2003 12:36:37 +0200
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0938 Actors v Scholars


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 May 2003 17:17:57 +0100
Subject: 14.0964 Re: Actors v Scholars
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0964 Re: Actors v Scholars

There clearly is a great difference between players and professors.  The
reason they do what they do points to a clear difference of the world
view of Shakespeare they both have.  I think the point is that each
sphere they inhabit is not the complete world and that they really do
need each other.  I am a player and would never be a professor - no, no,
no.

SAM SMALL
http://www.passioninpieces.co.uk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tue Sorensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 17 May 2003 12:36:37 +0200
Subject: 14.0938 Actors v Scholars
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0938 Actors v Scholars

Colin Cox writes:

>It has been a constant source of disappointment to me, the bewildering
>'synaptic cleft' between scholar and thespian. What is the history of
>this conundrum? Can anyone elucidate?

There is a book series called "Players" (I'm not sure about the title,
but I think it was reviewed in Shakespeare Magazine) which collect RSC
actors' accounts of how they perceive Shakespeare's literary and
theatrical meaning.  I have not yet read any of these myself, but they
seem like immensely interesting works.

The big dichotomy between actors and scholars must, unsurprisingly, have
to do with whether the plays should be seen as literature or theatre.
Each camp will maintain its own bias, although I have encountered many
scholars who consider the plays theatre first and foremost.

- Tue Sorensen

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Priests and Friars

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0975  Monday, 19 May 2003

From:           Andrew Cooley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 May 2003 15:14:06 +0100
Subject:        New Thread: Priests and Friars

I am currently researching 'Shakespeare's Ambiguous Priests' for my
Masters dissertation and wondered if anyone might know where I might
quickly find the difference between priests and friars in Shakespeare's
day.

I'm also interested in why he chooses the role of Friar for Vincentio
(MforM) and Laurence (R&J).  Could it be that Friars, owing their
allegiance to the Pope, were freer to 'meddle' and pass between and
among groups of people than ordinary priests?

Any ideas or references will be gratefully received.

Many thanks,
Andrew Cooley

_______________________________________________________________
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.