2004

Scholarly Edition of Measure for Measure

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0530  Wednesday, 25 February 2004

[1]     From:   David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 24 Feb 2004 16:01:28 -0000
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.0517 Scholarly Edition of Measure for Measure

[2]     From:   Sarah Stanton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 25 Feb 2004 09:15:55 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 20 Feb 2004 to 24 Feb 2004


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 24 Feb 2004 16:01:28 -0000
Subject: 15.0517 Scholarly Edition of Measure for Measure
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.0517 Scholarly Edition of Measure for Measure

 >N.W. Bawcutt's Oxford Shakespeare edition was published in
 >1991, and certainly shouldn't be ignored.  The introduction
 >has 17 pages on the stage history.
 >
 >John Briggs

Brian Gibbons' New Cambridge edition came out the same year, and has
even more pages on stage history!

David Lindley

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sarah Stanton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 25 Feb 2004 09:15:55 +0000
Subject:        Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 20 Feb 2004 to 24 Feb 2004 (#2004-38)

I am biased, but Brian Gibbons' edition of Measure for Measure for the
New Cambridge Shakespeare is excellent. It was published in 1991. You
can check it out on the CUP website.

Sarah Stanton
Publishing Director, Humanities, and Editor, Shakespeare Studies
Cambridge University Press

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Nathan Field

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0529  Wednesday, 25 February 2004

[1]     From:   Kris McDermott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 24 Feb 2004 17:55:18 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0506  Nathan Field

[2]     From:   David Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 24 Feb 2004 22:24:42 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0506 Nathan Field


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kris McDermott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 24 Feb 2004 17:55:18 EST
Subject: 15.0506  Nathan Field
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0506  Nathan Field

According to Roberta Brinkley's "Nathan Field, the Actor-Playwright,"
Field may have played with the King's Men in mid-1609, and may have
moved between them and the Children of the
Revels/Blackfriars/Whitefriars until they were officially absorbed by
Henslowe's company in 1613.  He was clearly considered one of the best
actors of the children's company, with his name consistently listed
first on the lists of players, so it's unsurprising that he played with
the Children long after his voice may have changed.  In "Epicoene," his
billing implies he might have played a lead role such as Morose or one
of the wits -- all "adult" roles -- so his age would be no impediment.
The "children" ranged greatly in age, especially at the end of the
companies' tenures; Michael Shapiro ("Children of the Revels") puts the
age range at 10-15 in the period between 1600-10.  So Field would have
been a bit long in the tooth, but Shapiro conjectures that by 1608 or so
the style of the chldren's companies had become much more
"naturalistic," like that of the adult companies.  If so, I suppose
Field's seniority would have been a natural extension of a general
change in tone of the children's companies.  Also, he was 13 when he
first began playing -- a bit older than the norm -- so maybe he just
"played younger" for as long as he could, rather like Baby June in
"Gypsy," and enjoyed an extended stage "childhood."

An interesting side-tidbit: Jonson claimed that Field was his "scollar,"
and that he tutored him in the classics, presumably backstage.  The
plays written by Field clearly show Jonson's influence.  And like
Jonson, Field was a fatherless child (Jonson was a "posthumous" baby,
and Field's minister father died when Nathan was only four months old)
-- this may have explained the affinity between the two.  And perhaps it
was Jonson's influence that got Field cast in "Epicoene" in spite of his
advanced age.

Kris McDermott
Central Michigan University

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 24 Feb 2004 22:24:42 -0600
Subject: 15.0506 Nathan Field
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0506 Nathan Field

Jeffrey Myer wrote:

 >Epicoene is supposed to have been "acted in the year 1609.  By the
 >Children of Her Majesty's Revels."  "Nat. Field" is listed among "The
 >principal Comedians."  Since he was baptized in 1587, that would have
 >made Field 22 years old at the time of the performance, which seems a
 >bit old to be considered a child.  What was the average age of the
 >"child" actors, and was it common to have actors as old as Field would
 >have been?

The boy actors who played female roles in the adult companies were
between 13 and 21 years old, with a median age of around 16 or so.  I
present the extensive evidence for this conclusion, much of it
unpublished, in a paper which is scheduled to appear in print next year,
though I've presented some of that evidence in various posts to SHAKSPER
over the past decade.

The boys in the all-boy companies were a bit younger on average, at
least based on the limited evidence we have.  When Henry Clifton
complained in 1601 about his son Thomas being kidnapped to act for the
Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars, he listed the boys in the
company, one of whom was Nathan Field.  Field was about 14 at the time,
and he was actually the oldest of the three boys in the company whose
dates of baptism we know:

Nathan Field: baptized 17 October 1587
Salomon Pavy: baptized 12 May 1588, St. Dunstan Stepney
John Motteram: baptized 6 July 1589, Addlethorpe, Lincolnshire

The 1609 Queen's Revels company is a bit of a special case, because it
has been specially formed after the plague closure of 1608-9, and
appears to have been a "boy" company in name only.  It was really more
of a "young men's" company.  Field was 22, as you point out, and another
of the "boys", William Barksted, was 19 or 20.  (There was a lawsuit in
1610 turning on whether he was 21 in that year, and thus legally of age
to sign a bond.)  Another of them, Giles Cary, joined Lady Elizabeth's
Men, a nominally adult company, in 1611 along with Barksted.  Field
himself had not continually been a "boy" player from 1601 to 1609; in
August 1604, at the age of 16, he was in Cambridge getting in trouble
with Francis Beaumont.  (See Hilton Kelliher, "Francis Beaumont and
Nathan Field: New Records of their Early Years", *English Manuscript
Studies* 8 (2000), 1-42.)

The only other all-boy company for which we have a reasonably complete
cast list is the 1631-2 King's Revels at Salisbury Court, and the five
boys in that company whose ages we can determine were between 11 and 16
at the time.  This reinforces the anomalous nature of the 1609 Queen's
Revels.

Dave Kathman
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Scribal Copy for Q1 Richard II?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0527  Wednesday, 25 February 2004

From:           Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 24 Feb 2004 06:21:44 EST
Subject:        Scribal Copy for Q1 Richard II?

Scribal Copy for Q1 Richard II?

[Apologies for the length of this post!]

Scholars have been undecided as to whether the compositor's copy for
Richard II (Q1597) consisted of a manuscript (foul or fair) in
Shakespeare's hand or was a scribal transcript in the hand of another.
The latest survey in the Arden III edition of 2002 [pp.517-20] admits
that "[o]n this point the evidence remains inconclusive" . But after
citing the arguments of Dover Wilson, Pollard, Hinman, Craven, Alexander
and Greg in favor of holograph copy and Ure, Feuillerat, and Jackson in
favor of a scribal transcript, the Arden editor seems to come down in
favor of holograph, for example: "...it is just as logical to infer that
the distinctive pattern of merged lines points to a Shakespearean
holograph-and this despite disturbances of metre in other places that
may well be compositorial," and "[t]he arguments for holograph copy,
however, cannot be dismissed," and sums up by citing the arguments of
the latest Oxford editors.

The Oxford Textual Companion states "The stage directions in Q are
authorial in character, and the text is thought to derive directly from
Shakespeare's foul papers or from a non-theatrical transcript of them.
The relative absence of the inconsistencies, confusions, and
Shakespearian spellings associated with foul-paper texts leads to the
suspicion that a transcript intervened. However, the only convincing
evidence for such a transcript is the preference for the spelling 'Oh'
where Shakespeare preferred 'O'. It remains possible-perhaps even most
probable-that Q was set from well-ordered authorial papers." [p.306]

So the current consensus, as represented by the influential Oxford and
Arden III editions, seems to be that while it is not impossible that the
Q1 copy was a scribal transcript, it is probable the manuscript was in
Shakespeare's hand. I here present some evidence suggesting that this is
unlikely and that the manuscript from which Q1597 was set was quite
probably a scribal transcript by someone other than Shakespeare.

It will be helpful to consider Q1 Richard II in light of the case of the
first quarto of 1 Henry IV. The Oxford Textual Companion gives thirteen
reasons for believing that this manuscript was not in Shakespeare's hand
but was a scribal copy [pp.329-30]. (This fragmentary first edition in
most other accounts is called Q0, but is designated Q1 by the Oxford
editors.) Reason #1 is: "Q consistently departs from Shakespeare's
preference *between* in favour of *betwixt* (Jackson, 'Two Shakespeare
Quartos')."  Reason #11 is: "As Walker pointed out Q is sparse in its
use of contracted forms; expansions are more likely to be scribal than
compositorial."

As has been shown by MacDonald Jackson, David Lake and others, early
modern writers often displayed consistent preferences among variant
forms of connective words, for example Among vs. Amongst, Between vs.
Betwixt, or the three-way choice between While, Whiles and Whilst. These
choices are (at least potentially) metrically equivalent, and do not
bear much stylistic significance so that an author would not normally be
aware of his preference and would not alter his choice depending on
genre, register, verse vs. prose, etc. It is true that interference by
collaborators, scribes and compositors may sometimes alter the
connective profile of a given work; and some writers simply don't have
strong preferences for one or another connective. But when a number of
works by the same writer from a number of printing houses or manuscript
sources show a consistent pattern, it seems safe to say that the
preference displayed is the writer's own.

The following table gives figures for three connective choices and for
contractions of 'the' in the 10 works which correspond most closely to
Richard II and 1 Henry IV in genre, style and date. Richard III, King
John, 2 Henry IV and Henry V are the histories written immediately
before, during and after the period when R2 and 1H4 were written
(c1595-97). The Oxford Textual Companion states that 2 Henry IV and
Henry V were set up from holograph copy; and one would further think
that the stylistic minutiae of 2 Henry IV would correspond closely to
its companion play. Venus & Adonis and Lucrece are, like Richard II,
written in a relatively heightened and formal verse style, while Love's
Labour's Lost, Midsummer Night's Dream, Romeo & Juliet, and to some
extent Merchant of Venice represent the "poetic" period of Shakespeare's
plays to which Richard II also belongs. Finally, LLL, MND, R&J Q2, 2H4
and MV are "good quartos", possibly set up from mss. in Shakespeare's
hand, but in any case believed to closely mirror his orthography,
sub-style and preferences, while the two narrative poems are believed to
have been set up from holograph copy.


Title           th' V   th' P / among -st   / between  -xt  /   while whiles whilst

Rich III [F1]   10      0       2       0       7       1       6       3       1
V&A              2      0       1       0       3       0       2       0       0
Lucrece  7      0       0       0       5       0       13      1       0
LLL              7      3       3       0       3       0       6       0       0
MND              3      2       2       0       6       1       5       1       2
R&J              6      0       6       0       3       0       5       1       0
K John          12      0       3       0       7       1       3       3       1
MV               9      2       5       0       10      3       4       1       2
2 Hen IV        11      19      6       1       6       0       1       3       0
Hen V           24      8       1       0       10      0       5       7       1
-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Works        81      34        29    1         60    6        50     20      7
  1593-99
STMore   3      3       1       0       0       0       0       1       0

Rich II          0      0       0       1       1       3       3       0       12
1 Hen IV         0      0       1       3       0       7       5       0       1

[These figures have been compiled from the Harvard Concordance; readings
given there as departing from copy-text have been excluded. Most have
been checked against the old-spelling texts available on the ISE
website. Two of the twelve Whilsts in Richard II are from the deposition
scene, which is of course not in Q1 but which I believe was part of the
original play. If they are excluded, the argument is not affected.]

Shakespeare's connective preferences in these 10 works is quite clear.
He chooses Amongst only once against 29 instance of Among. His
preferences for Between over Betwixt, and for While/Whiles over Whilst
are ratios of 10 to 1. (The "bonus figures" for the scene from Sir
Thomas More which is probably Shakespearean holograph tend to confirm
the sample profile.) The connective usage of both Richard II and 1 Henry
IV presents a clear contrast. 1 Henry IV differs from the comparison
sample in two of three connectives, showing an absolute preference for
Betwixt (as MacDonald Jackson pointed out); and reversing the
Among:Amongst profile-- its 3 instances of Among is three times that of
all the comparison plays combined. Richard II differs from the
comparison sample in all three connectives, preferring Amongst, Betwixt
and Whilst. The single Amongst (to no Among) is not statistically
significant but it equals the total Amongst displayed by all 10
comparison plays and, taken along with the preferences of the other two
connectives, contributes to the anomalous pattern. Betwixt in Richard II
is preferred over Between 3 to 1. Neither Richard II nor 1 Henry IV
displays any instances of Whiles- a slightly uncommon form that
Shakespeare was fond of, as evidenced by its appearance in 8 of the 10
comparison sample plays. And most unusually there are twelve instances
of Whilst- more than any other play in the canon- and it is preferred
over While by a ratio of 4 to 1.

The Oxford editors report Alice Walker's comment that 1 Henry IV is
"spare in its use of contractions". The same is true of Richard II. In
fact both 1H4 and R2 are completely devoid of one of the most common
contractions, used by many writers in both verse and prose- th' for the.
As can be seen from the 10 plays in the comparison sample, Shakespeare
used this contraction in histories, tragedies and comedies, in verse and
prose, early and late. Even the brief More scene yields 3 in verse and 3
in prose. The complete absence of this contraction from both Richard II
and 1 Henry IV stands in stark contrast. In the latter case this is
rather surprising as its companion play 2 Henry IV contains 30 instances
of th'  in both verse and prose. In the case of Richard II the formality
of the verse may be thought to preclude the use of contractions as
giving too informal a flavor. But the practice of Shakespeare in his
other 'poetic' verse plays and in his narrative poems does not support
this view.

Two other of the Oxford editors' Thirteen Reasons For Scribal Copy in
1H4 may also apply to Richard II.  Reason #6 points out that there is in
1 Henry IV an anomalously high percentage-just over half- of certain
types of stage directions lacking 'and' or 'with',. A table is given
showing rates of this lack in other Shakespeare plays. Richard II is the
next highest, with a third of its stage directions given in this form.
Reason #7 cites the use in 1H4 of the Latin plural stage direction
"manent", one of three occurrences in all of Shakespeare's plays. One of
the other two occurs in Richard II.

Scribal copy has been accepted in the case of 1 Henry IV, but has been
resisted in the case of Richard II. Scholars have felt that because some
palpably Shakespearean features-habits of lineation, lightness of
punctuation, etc.-can be seen to 'show through', that the printer's copy
was probably Shakespeare's manuscript. But this view does not take into
account the fact that Richard II (like 1 Henry IV) is anomalous in its
usage of connectives and contractions compared with those of
Shakespeare's works which are similar in genre, style and date. Since
the compositors of various printing houses more or less faithfully
transmitted Shakespeare's preferences in the other works this strongly
suggests that some agent, presumably a scribe, imposed these
non-Shakespearean features in the manuscripts that were used for
printer's copy. Since Valentine Simmes printed Q1 Richard II and Peter
Short Q0 and Q1 of 1 Henry IV it is unlikely that the similar features
of these texts were coincidentally imposed by different compositors.
Taken together with the anomalous stage directions cited above, these
features suggest not only that the manuscript of Richard II was scribal,
but also that the scribe who produced it may have been the same who made
the 1 Henry IV manuscript.

It cannot finally be determined why these two plays, among the
comparable Shakespeare texts of the period, should have been copied over
in such a way as to give them a somewhat more formal cast. But it is
noteworthy that both were subject to censorship-Richard II for its
deposition scene, and 1 Henry IV over the use of the name Oldcastle. It
is perhaps likely that the Master of the Revels required from the
players a new manuscript fair-copied after the changes had been made. A
scribe charged with producing non-threatening copies of potentially
dangerous plays may have tried to make the style more sedate. However it
may have happened, he clearly seems to have imposed his connective
preferences on these two plays.

Here's a radical suggestion: what if an editor of 1 Henry IV were to
change wholesale every instance of Betwixt in the text to Between?
Shakespeare did not absolutely eschew Betwixt so there's the possibility
that editor would be eliminating a genuinely Shakespearean reading or
two. But he or she would almost certainly be restoring more genuinely
Shakespearean readings than would be eliminated. And then on to the
Whilsts in Richard II?

Bill Lloyd

_______________________________________________________________
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.

The Essex Rebellion and Richard II

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0528  Wednesday, 25 February 2004

[1]     From:   Holger Schott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 24 Feb 2004 10:49:40 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0494 The Essex Rebellion and Richard II

[2]     From:   Holger Schott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 24 Feb 2004 10:51:19 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0494 The Essex Rebellion and Richard II


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Holger Schott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 24 Feb 2004 10:49:40 -0500
Subject: 15.0494 The Essex Rebellion and Richard II
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0494 The Essex Rebellion and Richard II

After brashly attacking Blair Worden in the early days of this thread, I
was away from my computer for most of the week and thus unable to
participate in the debate as it developed. I have a few comments to add
now, though -- especially since I've finally managed to actually read
Worden's piece (many thanks to John Price for sending me a copy).

I agree with Hugh Grady that the article contains little that's new.
Worden cites Leeds Barroll's 1989 _SQ_ article, whose points he claims
to "develop;" however, the substance of his argument is heavily indebted
to Barroll's, and with a few exceptions, he doesn't go beyond it.
Perhaps his most valuable observation is that Shakespeare seems
unusually uninterested in the figure of the favourite, and diverges from
the trend of the 1590s and later in portraying monarchs that "make their
own way to misgovernment." That struck me as relatively original (but
it's not a subject I've researched).

As for the argument that makes the piece newsworthy, Worden's claim that
the play performed on February 7, 1601, was not Shakespeare's, but a
dramatization of John Hayward's 1599 _Life and Reign of King Henry IV_,
I stand by what I said in my original post: Worden has not produced any
new evidence for this theory; it is unconvincing.

Worden relies on a number of extreme overstatements. For instance, he
claims that "no historical subject was of livelier interest in
Elizabeth's last years than Richard's overthrow; and there is no
likelier a subject of a missing play or plays." The first claim may hold
true, although it's by no means self-evident; the conclusion Worden
draws from it seems dubious. He argues elsewhere that the subject of
Richard's reign was politically charged after the publication, in
1593/4, of Robert Parson's _Conference about the Next Succession_; if
that is true (which again is not self-evident), surely the subject would
have been a _less_ likely choice for playwrights. Worden invokes Roslyn
Knutson's work in reminding us that many plays have been lost; however,
Knutson's own commercially-minded approach should surely make us
suspicious of a theory that argues that the Lord Chamberlain's Men,
reacting to the popularity of Hayward's book in 1599, paid for a new
play that covered exactly the same ground as a play that had been part
of their repertory (we assume) in 1595/6, if not later.  Reviving
Shakespeare's play seems like a much more economical proposal; we might
even speculate that the deposition scene was added at this point, to
increase the show's attractiveness. It is of course conceivable that
another company commissioned (or was offered) an adaptation of Hayward's
history; we know nothing of the commercial success of Shakespeare's play
on stage (it was popular in print), but if its success as a book is
anything to go by, a competing company might have liked the idea of
staging their own Richard.

Worden's confident assertion that "such a play existed, and it was not
Shakespeare's. It was the dramatization of a book" remains deeply
problematic, though. It is based on a single shred of evidence, an
abstract of the evidence against Essex assembled for Attorney General
Edward Coke in the summer of 1600 (in preparation for proceedings
against Essex in connection with his failure in Ireland). One of the
accusations against the Earl was "his underhand permitting of that most
treasonous book of Henry the fourth to be printed and published, being
plainly deciphered not only by the matter, and by the Epistle itself,
for what end and for whose behoof it was made, but also the Earl himself
being so often present at the playing thereof, and with great applause
giving countenance and liking to the same." Worden is sure that he knows
what this passage means: "In other words, Hayward's book had been
dramatised, and Essex - at what venue or venues, and in what company, we
cannot know - had watched, and given endorsement to, the dramatisation."
Other words indeed. "The playing thereof" poses something of a problem,
but if the phrase does indeed refer to a dramatic adaptation of
Hayward's book, I find it puzzling in the extreme that this fact was
never mentioned during any of the treason trials associated with Essex's
rebellion.

Another tricky issue is the chronology Worden proposes: he thinks that
the dramatized version of Hayward's history must have been mounted
before Essex left for Ireland on March 22, 1599. The book was published
in February of that year, which means that within a month, its
popularity had persuaded some company to commission a dramatic
adaptation, it had been allowed by the Master of the Revels, parts had
been copied out, costumes and props assembled, and _many_ performances
were mounted before Essex left the country. That's one scenario, highly
unlikely to my mind -- in fact, it virtually rules out performance by a
professional troupe of actors. A somewhat less unlikely scenario would
posit a series of private performances by an unknown group of actors
(most likely assembled for the purpose), written by an unknown author,
or perhaps even by Hayward himself, perhaps even before publication.
Such a performance, bypassing the Office of the Revels, might
conceivably have been thrown together before Essex's departure for
Ireland; alternatively, such a staging might have taken place after the
Earl's return from Ireland, at his house (a possibility Worden doesn't
consider). I don't know of any precedents for such a practice, but it's
not absolutely implausible. Again, though, I find it difficult to
understand why such a complex and labor-intensive undertaking would not
have figured more prominently in the trials and the literature
surrounding them.

Worden's supporting argument, that both Bacon and Coke refer to the
"story" of Henry IV as the subject of the play performed on the eve of
the rebellion, that Hayward's book was likewise called a "story," and
that "story" and "history" were used interchangeable, so that
_therefore_ the play in question must have been a dramatized version of
Hayward's book, is flimsy to say the least: any _history_ play "sets
forth" a "story" and most draw on chronicle histories to that end;
Shakespeare's play, in drawing extensively on Holinshed, dramatizes a
"(hi)story."

Citing John Manning, the editor of the Camden Society's 1991 edition of
Hayward's _Life_, Worden insists on the "dramatic" quality of Hayward's
writing, a quality that made the book "a work to tempt a dramatist."  If
it is true that Hayward's text is inherently dramatic, might the
"playing thereof" not simply have consisted in shared readings, with
members of Essex's circle reading aloud the speeches of characters from
the book?

In any case, the question whether Hayward's _Life_ was dramatized at all
or not is really secondary to Worden's central claim: that it was this
dramatization which was performed by the Lord Chamberlain's Men at the
Globe on February 7, 1601.  I have already pointed out the unlikelihood
of a commercial adaptation of the book within the timeframe posited by
Worden (a commercial staging of the text after Essex's return from
Ireland must surely be ruled out as impossible: a play based on a banned
book would not have pleased the Master of the Revels). This scenario
becomes even less likely when we add the Lord Chamberlain's Men into the
mix. And the idea that Meyrick et al. asked Augustine Phillips to mount
a performance of a play none of the actors had seen before within a day
is obviously absurd.

Worden's case for Hayward is painfully weak; his argument that the play
wasn't Shakespeare's _Richard II_, however, while also inconclusive, and
certainly very old news, stands, if only because no-one referred to the
play as Shakespeare's. That Augustine Phillips called it "old and long
out of use" hardly amounts to "greenroom bitchiness," as Worden thinks.
There is no positive evidence that the play wasn't the _Richard II_ we
know, but if we're willing to countenance the idea that the Lord
Chamberlain's Men in the 1590s owned two plays featuring the deposition
and killing of Richard II, we certainly can't rule out that Meyrick and
friends wanted to see the one that's lost. But that is all we can say.

A few quick responses to end this over-long contribution: Michael Egan's
notion that the entire episode was manufactured doesn't hold water. The
performance itself wasn't treasonable, it didn't play a large enough
role in the trials, and the surviving documents look, to my eye at
least, convincing. Don Bloom's theory that the Lord Chamberlain's Men,
"the queen's own acting troupe," might have been involved in an effort
to set Essex up similarly fails to persuade me, although it has a
certain romantic charm (of a dark kind). They weren't "the queen's own"
company; Essex wasn't closely associated with the performance (his
associates were, as Worden rightly points out), and the episode simply
wasn't important enough to carry such weight. Finally Gary Kosinsky is
very right to refer us all back the PMLA debate between Evelyn May
Albright and Ray Heffner from the 1930s, cited by Leeds Barroll, and
largely ignored by Blair Worden. I should also say that I find Hugh
Grady's argument, that the play put on at Meyrick's request was meant to
represent Hayward's history, shrewd and utterly persuasive.

Apologies for excessive length --

Holger

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Holger Schott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 24 Feb 2004 10:51:19 -0500
Subject: 15.0494 The Essex Rebellion and Richard II
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0494 The Essex Rebellion and Richard II

Having already responded to recent posts in this thread at far too great
length, I will just briefly comment on the exchange between Hugh Grady
and Tom Rutter over Elizabeth I's infamous "I am Richard II" remark.

Regarding the queen's claim that "this tragedy was played 40tie times in
open streets and houses," I don't think Tom's suggestion, that
"Elizabeth wasn't referring to a stage play at all," and that she might
have been using "the theatrical metaphor that was so pervasive in
Elizabethan speech, a reference to the Essex rebellion itself maybe,
rather than to performances of a play," is "pushing it a bit" at all --
in fact, I find it completely persuasive.

I don't think, however, that Elizabeth merely refers to Essex: rather,
if we consider the context of the statement, what she seems to say is
that Essex's fate was sadly not unique: "He that will forget God, will
also forget his benefactors" (like the Earl); however, in her long
reign, she has seen that kind of thing happen frequently -- all over the
place. Hugh Grady objects "that the '40tie times' seems an odd phrase to
me in that context," but the OED records the indefinite use of "forty"
simply "to express a large number" ("forty," A. b) from the 17th century
(with its first citation from _Coriolanus_).

In fact, there is nothing in the exchange between Elizabeth and William
Lambarde to suggest that either of them was thinking of a play at all.
They talked about English history and its records, the queen "fell upon
the reign of King Richard II," compared herself to the monarch (_not_ to
a figure in a play, by Shakespeare or anyone else), Lambarde told her
that Essex's treason used the same conceit, and Elizabeth than picked up
the fallen favorite motif in Lambarde's response to lament the frequency
of such ingratitude. I fear the association of the conversation with
actual theatrical performances, and particularly with Shakespeare's
play, derives more from a critical desire that the stage and its
greatest author should have been on the queen's mind than from anything
in the text itself.

Best,
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.

CFP

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0526  Wednesday, 25 February 2004

From:           Natalia Cyrzan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 24 Feb 2004 12:07:38 +0100
Subject:        CFP

Shakespeare Reception in the Baltic Region Today
International Conference organized by Theatrum Gedanense Foundation and
The Polish Shakespeare Association
Gdansk, 6-8 August 2004

1st Call for Papers

The countries surrounding the Baltic Sea, which had developed their own
unique responses to a shared cultural background, have been thrust into
radically different political and social circumstances in the aftermath
of the two world wars. In the wake of the collapse of Communism the
region may rediscover its long lost cultural affinity in diversity.
Inquiry into the translations, adaptations, theatrical productions and
Shakespearean reflexes in contemporary literature offers an opportunity
to assess the reception of Shakespeare's drama in the cultures of the
Baltic region (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, Russia, Sweden).

We invite scholars, theatre directors, critics and performers to submit
their contributions. The duration of the presentation should not exceed
30 minutes. The deadline for the registration forms and abstracts (circa
100 words) is 1 May, 2004. The organizers cover travel and accommodation
costs of those participants whose papers have been accepted and will
assist other participants in booking budget accommodation in Gdansk. As
the Conference coincides with the 8th International Shakespeare Festival
in Gdansk, the participants will be offered complimentary tickets to
some of the performances.

The proceedings will be published in a bilingual, Polish-English edition
(languages of the conference) in 2004. Given the tight deadlines, we
would appreciate if the papers were submitted by 1 July (a hard copy and
floppy disc, 12-15 pages, footnotes, MLA Style-sheet;  Address:
Vice-President of The Polish Shakespeare Association,
Dr hab. Ewa Nawrocka, 80-219 Gdansk, Al. Zwyciestwa 26/6, Poland; email:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

Registration forms and abstracts should be mailed to: Natalia Cyrzan,
email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Organizing Committee: Dr. hab. Ewa Nawrocka, Dr. Olga Kubinska, Natalia
Cyrzan, Joanna Sniezko, Paulina Ryterska, Barbara Walentynowicz.

_______________________________________________________________
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.