2005

Shakespeare's Welsh Inspiration?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0737  Tuesday, 19 April 2005

[1]     From:   Norman Hinton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 15 Apr 2005 11:30:42 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0720 Shakespeare's Welsh Inspiration?

[2]     From:   Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 15 Apr 2005 12:47:11 -0400
        Subj:   SHK 16.0720 Shakespeare's Welsh Inspiration?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Norman Hinton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 15 Apr 2005 11:30:42 -0500
Subject: 16.0720 Shakespeare's Welsh Inspiration?
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0720 Shakespeare's Welsh Inspiration?

I doubt that the incidence of 'Iago' in a history of Wales is relevant
.. the Oxford Dictionary of Surnames (Patrick Hanks and Flavia Hodges,
OUP, 1989) gives 'Iago' as Welsh form of 'Jack', either (1) from Fr.
Jacques < Lat. Jacobus or (2) from "a pet form of John, fr Low German
and Dutch Jankin < Jan + the dim.sufix -in (The loss of the nasal was a
regular development in Low Ger.)"

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 15 Apr 2005 12:47:11 -0400
Subject: Shakespeare's Welsh Inspiration?
Comment:        SHK 16.0720 Shakespeare's Welsh Inspiration?

Ida Gaskin claims that Iago is not 'a common Welsh name.'  One of the
most widely known English-language poets of the twentieth century, the
Welshman R. S. Thomas, named the central iconic figure of his verse '
Iago Prytherch'. He describes him as 'an ordinary man of the bald Welsh
hills'.

T. Hawkes

_______________________________________________________________
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 16.0736  Tuesday, 19 April 2005

[1]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 15 Apr 2005 12:13:03 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0717 Love's Labours Won

[2]     From:   Scot Zarela <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 16 Apr 2005 14:40:50 -0700
        Subj:   Re: Love's Labour's Won

[3]     From:   Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 15 Apr 2005 15:46:08 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0717 Love's Labours Won


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 15 Apr 2005 12:13:03 -0400
Subject: 16.0717 Love's Labours Won
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0717 Love's Labours Won

 >It is by no means obvious that LLW is a sequel to LLL - there are
 >unlimited other explanations (or limited only by human imagination,
 >which amounts to the same thing).

And, as David Basch (and Leslie Hotson) show, that is hardly a limitation.

 >All that we actually know is that it
 >was apparently known as a play by Shakespeare (or as a book, assumed to
 >be of a play by Shakespeare) to Francis Meres, and as a book to a
 >contemporary stationer.

Actually, we know a lot more than that:

(1)  In 1952 a bookseller's inventory was discovered that listed both
LLL and LLW as separate listings in alphabetical order.  Perhaps this is
what John Briggs means by "and as a book to a contemporary stationer."
But this evidence cannot be fobbed off so backhandedly.  The bookseller
would have had no reason to fabricate the names in his stock.

(2)  The internal evidence in LLL is even more evocative. The play does
not end like a traditional comedy, as Birowne notes ("Jack hath not
Jill"), and the ending is full of strong hints of a continuation after a
year ("it wants a twelvemonth and a day, / And then 'twill end.  That's
too long for a play.").  In other words, "stay tuned."   The tasks
assigned the various gentlemen  provide good grist for another comedy.

 >But we also know that there was a lost 'first'
 >quarto of LLL. My own suggestion (invoking, as
 >usual, Ockham's Razor is that this lost quarto was
 >a 'Bad' quarto, and bore the title "Love's
 >Labours Lost, Love's Labours Won".

Then why would the bookseller list the two titles separately?  Applying
Occam's razor, the answer is because they were two separate volumes.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Scot Zarela <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 16 Apr 2005 14:40:50 -0700
Subject:        Re: Love's Labour's Won

I thought that Leslie Hotson had suggested "Love's Labour's Won" as an
alternative title for "Twelfth Night" (probably in his /The First Night
of 'Twelfth Night'/, [London:  R. Hart-Davis, 1954]).  But my memory may
be gamboling; perhaps it was another scholar's suggestion.

The possibility that Shakespeare's "Troilus" was "LLWon" teases out of
thought.  Did Meres, in his play-going days, encounter some ephemeral
advertising that associated the phrase with the title?  We do know (if
we know anything) that the play was no crowd-pleaser:  then if Meres was
one of the few who did like it, he may have retained the nonce
catch-phrase as his personal title to the (never revived?) play.  (Not
being revived, it wouldn't get lodged-through repetition-under an
"official" title.)

 From speculation to inquiry:  what do we know about the styles of
advertising that the player-companies used?  More specifically, the
verbal styles in printed advertising-handbills, broadsheets, whatever?
(I leave the question open-ended because unable to promise that it will
lead us to the "lost play" or to an explanation of the "ghost title".)

David Basch also gives an account of Hotson's take on "the meaning of
the titles .. Love's Labour's Won (and Lost)".  I don't know how
faithful the account is; but one of them, or I, must be missing
something.  I understand the sense of /love's labour's lost/ as /the
effort of love is gone for nought/.  The parallel title gives a meaning
out of parallel:  /the sought-for end of love is attained/.  If applied
to "Troilus & Cressida" it makes a bitter jest.

-- Scot

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 15 Apr 2005 15:46:08 -0400
Subject: 16.0717 Love's Labours Won
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0717 Love's Labours Won

 >My own suggestion (invoking, as usual, Ockham's Razor)
 >is that this lost quarto was a 'Bad' quarto, and bore the title "Love's
 >Labours Lost, Love's Labours Won".
 >
 >John Briggs

How would "Love's Labours Won" pertain to the play we know?  I don't see
Troilus and Cressida as "Love's Labours Won," either.  I don't buy
Hotson's argument and think T&C belongs to a much later style and
outlook of Shakespeare's.  I still hold for Shrew.  At least it very
much fits the title, as no other contender does (without strain).

--Bob G.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Personal

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0734  Tuesday, 19 April 2005

From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 18 Apr 2005 08:03:44 -0500
Subject:        Personal

I would like to thank everyone (again) for all the helpful suggestions
about the best way to get from London to Aberdeen. My daughter arrived
back there yesterday after a glorious spring break trip to London and
the Continent.

What nice people there are on this list.

Cheers,
don

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Dating Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0735  Tuesday, 19 April 2005

[1]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 15 Apr 2005 13:39:09 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0721 Dating Hamlet

[2]     From:   Judy Prince <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 15 Apr 2005 13:15:37 -0400
        Subj:   Dating Hamlet


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 15 Apr 2005 13:39:09 +0100
Subject: 16.0721 Dating Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0721 Dating Hamlet

 >>Why not the present?
..

 >Why not all of the above? Shakespeare makes no bones about time or
 >setting.  1595 Londoners in 1251 BCE Athens! The actual setting of
 >Hamlet would appear to be circa 1040, the time period in which Elsinore
 >was the capitol of Denmark.
..
 >Colin Cox

A dash of cold rationality, and I think Colin Cox is close to where I'd
be if I weren't trying to defend the indefensible.

I think my basic point is that the Globe audience about 1600 would have
had to have had *some* sense of the temporal citing of +Hamlet+ -- when
would they imagine it to have been set, and what dramatic signals does
the play project to control this?

The eyrie of children (in F but not Q2) is a tricky point -- this only
makes sense in terms of contemporary London.

Alas.

On a perhaps related matter, would Edgar acting the part of a Bedlamite
Beggar in +Lear+ have been seen as contemporary (in English Renaissance
terms)?

Robin Hamilton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judy Prince <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 15 Apr 2005 13:15:37 -0400
Subject:        Dating Hamlet

I dated Hamlet, but I'm not telling when.

Judy

_______________________________________________________________
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 16.0733  Tuesday, 19 April 2005

From:           Harvey Roy Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 17 Apr 2005 02:52:36 EDT
Subject:        How to Play Henry V act 1 scene 2

Still gathering material for a piece on the playing of the presentation
of the Selig law to Henry as justification for the invasion of France.

My question to the group is: would the audience, groundlings included,
know about the history Shakespeare was presenting, or was it hugger
mugger for the groundlings before the action -- deeper than the shabby
reasons for action in RAMBO films, but not attended to in a similar
vein. Or would the Selig speech draw the attention of the audience high
and low. How was this tendentious argument presented at the Globe?
Humorously? Seriously? My son also raised the issue of the relevance of
the Selig speech to contemporary Elizabethan events. Would an audience
high and low be likely to draw analogies between the often bloody
debates over succession of HENRY V's day, and the various often bloody
assertions that Elizabeth's descent was not 'true'. I do not know the
answers to any of these questions am not, as many of you know a
Shakespearean scholar  so I turn as I have before to this group for help

I welcome hard facts as well as pure speculation.

What continues to bother me as per earlier questions is that the Selig
law speech is played for laughs more often than not, when its' content
is crucial in terms of letting loose the dogs of war. Even if Henry's
mind had been made up beforehand, the reasons had to be set forth for
all to see, and to set them forth satirically seems to beggar the
seriousness of the issues involved.

Thanks again for your help.  Harvey Roy Greenberg, MD

_______________________________________________________________
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.