2005

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0580  Tuesday, 29 March 2005

From:           William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 25 Mar 2005 17:25:05 -0500
Subject: 16.0559 Ralph Crane: Accidental Editor
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0559 Ralph Crane: Accidental Editor

"There is, for example, the slightly mysterious incident of the King's
Men being permitted in 1623 to perform "The Winter's Tale" (one of
Crane's texts) despite 'the allowed book being missing'.  Crane must
have supplied the replacement playbook."

If all the individual rolls/roles were available to the company,
wouldn't they be able to put on the show without the "allowed book"? The
signature of the Master of the Revels or his underling would -- wouldn't
it? -- be a formality that might be waived, especially if the Master had
a record of the allowance.

Bill Godshalk

_______________________________________________________________
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.