2005

Lady Norton or Henry Wriothesley

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0839  Friday, 29 April 2005

From:           Elliott Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Apr 2005 09:02:01 -0400
Subject: 16.0809 Lady Norton or Henry Wriothesley
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0809 Lady Norton or Henry Wriothesley

I believe that the true identity of the Cobbe Portrait is "Child Of
Venus And Adonis also known as Changeling Child  A Lovely Boy Stolen
 From An Indian King".

Best,
Elliott H. Stone

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Love's Labours Won

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0838  Friday, 29 April 2005

[1]     From:   John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 17:41:38 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0828 Love's Labours Won

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 16:44:49 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0828 Love's Labours Won

[3]     From:   Sandra Sparks <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Apr 2005 08:59:13 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0828 Love's Labours Won

[4]     From:   David Crosby <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Apr 2005 10:17:44 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0755 Love's Labours Lost


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 17:41:38 +0100
Subject: 16.0828 Love's Labours Won
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0828 Love's Labours Won

Melvyn R. Leventhal wrote:

 >The critical points made by Lucas Erne (and marginally reinforced by
 >me) are: a) Much Ado COULD BE another name for LLW and b) therefore,
 >contrary to the hypothesis of T.W. Baldwin, the Bookseller's List does
 >not prove that LLW is a lost work by Shakespeare.

But if LLW could be another name for 'Much Ado' in the "bookseller's
list", then that list loses its value as evidence.  This relied upon the
"bookseller's list" being a list of actual titles of actual books, and
thus providing *independent* corroboration of the list in 'Palladis
Tamia'.  If the titles of books in the list do not represent actual
titles, they could just as easily not represent actual books.  They
could then represent desiderata (culled from Meres), or orders from
customers (who could also have read Meres).  Baldwin's hypothesis was
not so much that LLW was a lost work by Shakespeare, as that it was the
actual title of an actual book.  The assumption that it was lost work by
Shakespeare followed from the (only other) evidence of Meres in
'Palladis Tamia' that it was the actual title of an actual play (by
Shakespeare, as it happens).

John Briggs

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 16:44:49 -0400
Subject: 16.0828 Love's Labours Won
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0828 Love's Labours Won

 >Please state the "internal evidence" that a sequel was contemplated for
 >LLL and that also rules out Much Ado as that sequel.

I thought I had done this.  The French ladies set amusing tasks for the
gentlemen to occupy their time until they resume their acquaintance in a
year.  Nothing remotely like that occurs in MA/N.

And, of course, Basch feels the need to chime in with a risibly
erroneous observation:

 > In each case, as noted in the play, "Jack has got his Jill."

Typically, Basch has it bass-ackward.  What Berowne says is the
opposite:  "Our wooing doth not end like an old play:/ Jack hath not
Gill."  (V.ii.874-75 [Riverside])

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sandra Sparks <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Apr 2005 08:59:13 -0400
Subject: 16.0828 Love's Labours Won
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0828 Love's Labours Won

Something to consider:

Does anyone think that it could be possible, since it has been thought
that Rosaline was based upon WS's own Dark "Lady," that, if the
resemblance between Rosaline and, say, Emilia Lanier, had continued into
Love's Labours Won, that the messiness of his affairs with both the lord
of his love and his mistress and a too, too close resemblance, might
have caused him to withdraw LLW from his own canon?

Just shooting an arrow in the air here, seeing how it falls...

Sandra Sparks
Performer Atlanta Shakespeare Company

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Crosby <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Apr 2005 10:17:44 -0500
Subject: 16.0755 Love's Labours Lost
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0755 Love's Labours Lost

In the midst of all the quibbling about whether and where the
apostrophes fall (even a cursory look at a first folio will reveal the
near total inconsistency in the way possessives are treated
typographically), no one seems to have remarked that the Elizabethan
poets tended to speak, if not think, emblematically and allegorically.
The "Love" in the title is very likely to refer to a personified figure
of Love, either amor, eros, or cupid, and it is his labor that is lost.
The labor of Love, traditionally, is the shooting of arrows in all
directions, striking humans (and other supernaturals) and leading them
to perform all manner of silly and revolting things.

This would seem to be more sensible a reading of either title, LLL or
LLW.  Perhaps someone can even provide an emblem book with a picture of
Cupid having lost (or won) his labor?

Regards,
David Crosby
<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.

How to Play Henry V act 1 scene 2

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0836  Friday, 29 April 2005

[1]     From:   John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 15:49:30 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0826 How to Play Henry V act 1 scene 2

[2]     From:   Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 14:32:55 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0826 How to Play Henry V act 1 scene 2


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 15:49:30 +0100
Subject: 16.0826 How to Play Henry V act 1 scene 2
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0826 How to Play Henry V act 1 scene 2

HR Greenberg wrote:

 >My other question -- which may or may not have been asked -- is: when
 >and if was the play performed, presumably at court, before Elizabeth
 >and or James I.

"Henry V" was performed at Court, at Whitehall, on 7th January 1604/05.
Ben Jonson's "Masque of Blackness" had been performed at the previous
day, on Twelfth Night, 6th January 1604/05, and I would suggest that the
Banqueting or Masquing House was thus not available.  I suggest that the
performance of "Henry V" could have been in the Whitehall Cockpit, and
that it held the vasty fields of France.

John Briggs

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 14:32:55 -0700
Subject: 16.0826 How to Play Henry V act 1 scene 2
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0826 How to Play Henry V act 1 scene 2

 >My other question -- which may or may not have been asked -- is: when
 >and if was the play performed, presumably at court, before Elizabeth and
 >or James I.

The first recorded performance of Henry V at court is as part of the
Christmas Revels on January 7th, 1605.

Colin Cox


_______________________________________________________________
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.

Martin Green on 'Quondam

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0837  Friday, 29 April 2005

[1]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 12:37:11 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0825 Martin Green on 'Quondam'

[2]     From:   Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 23:09:42 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0811 Martin Green on 'Quondam'


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 12:37:11 -0400
Subject: 16.0825 Martin Green on 'Quondam'
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0825 Martin Green on 'Quondam'

Volume II of Manchester's biography of Churchill describes an argument
between Churchill and the Duke of Windsor when they were both in Monte
Carlo.  Manchester refers to the Duke as the "quondam king."  It gave me
a laugh, especially in light of Edward's childlessness (perhaps the only
patriotic thing he ever did).

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 23:09:42 EDT
Subject: 16.0811 Martin Green on 'Quondam'
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0811 Martin Green on 'Quondam'

John Briggs:

 >I thought it was well known that the most likely derivation
 >of the 18th-century word 'condom' was from the Latin
 >'condominium,' in the extended sense of 'protection'.

William Godshalk:

 >If this is true (and not a joke), the OED has not picked
 >up on this likely derivation. I have just checked "condom"
 >and "condominium," and there is no indication of any link
 >between the two.

Kruck gives the etymological investigation of 'condom' a thorough study,
citing even Playboy's 'conundrum'; without mentioning
'condominium'-which is in any case unlikely.  In 1905 'condus' was
proposed, "that which secures, preserves, guards (something)." However,
as I reported earlier, the definition hardly fits a nonce-word whose
third surviving form (ending its use and beginning its study) is found
in "The Explanation of Obsolete Words," from about 500 AD.

My impression is that those who care are stumped. Those who don't
care-are surely content to allow others their interests. The OED
declined mention of 'condom' in its first edition and in the 1933
re-issue and its supplement; but acknowledged it in 1972. The editors
seemingly shared the values of James Dixon, a contributor in 1888:

    I have marked my envelope 'private,' because I am writing
    on a very obscene subject. . . . It is a contrivance used by
    fornicators, to save themselves from a well-deserved clap
    . . . . Everything obscene comes from France . . .

Bruce Richman:

 >My original editions of the OED and Skeat's Etymological
 >Dictionary of the English Language both discreetly omit
 >"condom" entirely. My Latin-English Dictionary (David McKay
 >Publishers, NY, 1938), cites Latin "condo" as "sheathe" and
 >"to thrust into".

The first dictionary to list 'cundum' was that of Captain Grose (d.
1791), _A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue_(1785).  The
definition apparently omitted its function and the word was dropped in
later editions. The second listing (1889) described it as a "French
letter." Kruck notes that "The device itself was banned in a papal bull
of 1826" (reported in German as "diese Erfindung [invention] verdammte .
. . ")

In 1928 _Bilder-Lexicon_ reports "many authors" explaining the word as
'condere gladium' (to keep the sword; 'scabbard' or 'sheath'). Kruck
found none of the "many authors" nor any such reference to the French
letter. Modern references before Kruck obviously conflated sources for
convenient retelling.

Martin Green:

 >This appearance of the word "quondam," used as a noun,
 >to designate a former member of a monastic order . . .
 >may provide the solution to the mystery

I reread this note in _Wriothesley's Roses_ before raising the issue
here. 'Quondam' seems always to refer to some 'former' state, even as a
noun. There is no evidence that the term was transferred to the clothing
of 'quondams', clerical or otherwise. Because this step is speculative,
the odds for a solution are lessened. In contrast, 'condum' is defined
as 'cup' by 1594, when speculation needs only to accommodate the metaphor.

Martin Green's larger argument does not rely on the quondam/ condom pun;
his discussion is an aside devoted rather to an interesting and ongoing
etymological question. Yet I would not disagree with him on any issue
without suggesting that the worth of his books on the sonnets should be
generally better acknowledged.

Objection is made to the Q/C pun because 'quondam' is an adjective and
'condom' is a noun. Most sexually related and punned-on terms in
Shakespeare are nouns. Yet the deciding factor for a double-entendre is
sound, not the part of speech.  'Quondam' is further restricted by its
meaning (former). Still, the lines noted by Green are fitted to these
conditions with little trouble. As Green further relates, difficulty in
imposing complete sense to bawdy word-play is as much a sign of the
intent as evidence against it.

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.

Noted Weed

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0835  Friday, 29 April 2005

[1]     From:   Alan Dessen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 10:42:29 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0823 Noted Weed

[2]     From:   JD Markel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 12:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
        Suct:   Re: SHK 16.0823 Noted Weed


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Alan Dessen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 10:42:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 16.0823 Noted Weed
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0823 Noted Weed

I've seen a production of *The Winter's Tale* in which Florizel waved a
joint when delivering his speech to Perdita that begins "These your
unusual weeds."

Alan Dessen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           JD Markel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 12:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.0823 Noted Weed
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0823 Noted Weed

Rastafarian?  I think you're on to something. KJV's Psalm 137 is scored
no better than to a reggae beat.  (By the waters of Babylon...).  Rastas
do not merely "borrow lyrics" form KJV, they resurect and authenticate
the music which inspired Shakespeare.

And in KH4p2-

"I speak of Africa and golden joys."

Typical Rastafarian romanticization of the home continent.

_______________________________________________________________
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.