Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2004 :: March ::
Oldcastle
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0791  Wednesday, 31 March 2004

[1]     From:   W.L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Mar 2004 13:20:50 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0779 Oldcastle

[2]     From:   W.L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Mar 2004 13:20:50 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0779 Oldcastle


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W.L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Mar 2004 13:14:28 -0500
Subject: 15.0779 Oldcastle
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0779 Oldcastle

Professor Wells writes: "It is hard to deny that Falstaff was called
Oldcastle in the text of Henry the Fourth Part One as first acted."
Actually it's quite easily done.  After analyzing uses of "Falstaff" in
1 and 2 HenIV, Tom Pendleton finds no evidence that "Oldcastle" was once
there and later changed to "Falstaff."  We have for the last several
postings been questioning the evidence that "Falstaff" was once called
"Oldcastle" in the  HenIV plays.  Perhaps Professor Wells will point to
the indisputable evidence that we have missed.  How can he be so sure
about the script used by Shakespeare's company for the first performance?

Bill Godshalk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W.L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Mar 2004 13:20:50 -0500
Subject: 15.0779 Oldcastle
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0779 Oldcastle

Sean Lawrence some days ago asked:  "Could the joke in 1H4 be explained
by reference to the sources of the play, in which case we needn't think
of Oldcastle as a previous name for the character at all?"  Yesterday I
tried to answer this question, but without acknowledging Sean's
contribution.

I apologize.

Bill Godshalk

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail 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.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.