2006

Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0259  Friday, 31 March 2006

From: 		David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 20:48:56 -0500
Subject: 17.0243 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0243 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine

I give much thanks to Bill Lloyd and Joseph Egert for enlightening me 
about the history of the Dugdale drawing of which is was totally 
ignorant, thinking the one presented by Charlton Ogburn as the original. 
  Bill Lloyd gave me the opportunity to make my own investigation since 
the internet site he identified in his posting showed all the versions 
subsequently made of the original Dugdale sketch. I urge others on the 
list to do their own examination of these versions so as to come up with 
their own views and not views planted by those who have axes to grind, 
among them, possibly, to certify that what we have today as the monument 
is what was there originally.

If we look at these versions, most of which attempt to replicate the 
original sketch, we must conclude that the original featured a pillow 
like pads under the poet's hands without the pen. This seems to be 
confirmed.

As to the head, while some of the versions disagree on details of 
architectural representation, they all agree on the characterization of 
the head as gaunt and with a gout. Only the 1723 Vertue engraving gives 
a representation that squares with the present sculpture.

One cannot help concluding that Vertue's engraving was made for the 
express purpose of obscuring the fact that a shift in sculpture was made 
since all the other versions stick with the characterization based on 
the Dugdale of a less than roly poly, jolly face and without the quill 
and writing desk. That is what I conclude and leave it to others to come 
to their own conclusions.

Why the attempt to obscure the fact or the possible fact that there was 
a change? I leave that for others to ask their own questions on this. As 
for me, I would stick to my view that the Dugdale opens up the Hilliard 
and the Grafton portraits as possible representations of the real poet, 
though I have no objection to considering the Chandos portrait as 
authentic, though a much later, more mature version of the poet at 
perhaps the year 1610 at which time the poet would have been about 46.

As to why Joe Egert would insinuate that raising the issue of the 
irregularity in the monument is "cultic anti-Stratfordianism" is beyond 
me since I hold the view that Shakespeare, the Stratfordian, wrote his 
own plays and still am well able to believe that this great poet was 
unknown as a poet in his native city during his lifetime and for years 
later. It seems to me that, after the poet's reputation finally caught 
up in Stratford, there were some authorities that found the then 
monument not fitting since, without the tablet and quill, it would 
reveal the fact that the locals had not known this man in their midst 
was a great poet, nor did the authorities think the monument adequately 
resembled what they thought such a great writer should look like.

What other questions these observations bring up seems for now beside 
the point. Perhaps Joe Egert can be more explicit about his objections 
aside from poisoning the well for those who wish to consider facts as 
they are.

David Basch

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Chettle, Greene, Shake-scene

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0258  Friday, 31 March 2006

From: 		Jeffrey Jordan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 23:53:26 -0600
Subject: 17.0242 Chettle, Greene, Shake-scene
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0242 Chettle, Greene, Shake-scene

Replying to Bob Grumman.

(I'll refer to Shakespeare as "S" for brevity.  I've gotta do something 
for brevity, considering how long my replies run.)

 >The main reason I think Chettle was probably apologizing
 >to Marlowe and Shakespeare, as I've said, is that they were
 >the two playwrights most insulted. There's no reason Chettle
 >should have gone into detail about exactly what he was
 >apologizing to either for. In fact, it would have been impolite
 >--for putting the insults into circulation again. ...

Marlowe wasn't just insulted, his liberty, in the Elizabethan theocracy, 
was threatened.  He wasn't complaining about a personal insult.

If the GW problem were Greene's slur on S's public reputation, there's 
every reason S would have wanted Chettle to be clear about what the 
problem was.  He would have wanted an express statement from Chettle, at 
the next opportunity, that what Greene said was wrong, and he was a fine 
playwright, etc.  But KH contains no such thing.  Chettle only calls it, 
mysteriously, a "private cause," which public reputation as a playwright 
is not.  It makes no sense - an apology that's no real apology, a 
retraction that retracts nothing in particular.

Certainly, Chettle couldn't mention the accusation of Marlowe's atheism 
again in print.  That would have made it worse.  But there was nothing 
stopping Chettle from an overt statement about S being a good 
playwright, if that's really what the GW problem was, and if it was 
really S who visited Chettle.  It doesn't add up.

 >As I argue in my Internet essay, Chettle DID refer near-directly
 > to what Greene said about Shakespeare, pretty much
 >apologizing for each insult separately.

I don't find that in KH.  Chettle said the second person had a civil 
demeanor, as Chettle saw him.  But Green's complaint about S wasn't 
about his demeanor, but rather about his play writing.

There's Chettle's mention of "quality."  I'm aware that word is often 
taken to refer to stage acting, but it doesn't mean exactly that, in my 
judgment.  "Quality" was a word used for people of high status.  Stage 
actors were required by law to be under the sponsorship of a noble, else 
they were classed as "vagabonds," etc.  So actors gained "quality" by 
being employed by a noble.  Acting companies were even referred to by 
the name of the noble, as in, for example, "the Lord Leicester, his 
servants," or some similar phrase.  That's why "quality" was used to 
refer to properly-sponsored actors, (as best I can tell.)  But any 
person sponsored by, or employed by, a noble would also have "quality" 
in that same way, and John Lyly was "esquire to the body," as they 
called it, for Queen Elizabeth.  "Quality," indeed.

Chettle doesn't say the "diverse of worship" told him personally about 
the second person.  It seems highly unlikely that persons of worship 
would rub elbows with a lowly printer/compositor like Chettle.  In KH, 
about the "reports from diverse of worship," Chettle was most likely 
referring to things he'd read, or learned second-hand.  But there's 
nothing known in print about S before that time, to associate him with 
any persons of high status.  V&A, S's first publication, with the 
dedication to Southampton, was a year later, or so.  For Lyly, it's 
quite different.  He was well associated in print with persons of the 
highest status, including the Queen, and he had some five plays in print 
by then.

There's the mention of "facetious grace" in KH.  Much of S's writing is 
facetious - the comedies, of course - but I wouldn't say that's a very 
good description of the history plays, which seem to have been S's 
first, and what would have been known in 1592 (and also specifically 
what Greene alluded to, a history play.)  Chettle's phrase "facetious 
grace" doesn't match with the reasonable S play chronology (unless I'm 
out of touch on that.)  However, "facetious grace," in 1592, fits John 
Lyly to a T, because, as I mentioned, "Eupheus" is from the Greek for 
"graceful."  It's as though Chettle is intentionally hinting that it's Lyly.

 >The idea that Shakespeare would not have cared what Greene
 >said about him doesn't make sense to me.

It does to me.  GW was only a pamphlet, and S was a working theatrical 
guy.  The best way for S to prove Greene wrong was in merely continuing 
to do what he was doing.  Why bother Chettle?  Greene was dead, so 
what's the point for S?

Lyly had a good reason to go to Chettle, hoping for some way to get a 
retraction about Marlowe's atheism - politics.  Among other things, Lyly 
was a member of Parliament, and it would have been a problem for him to 
be assocated with alleged atheists, and with university atheists, 
allegedly, since he was a university fellow.  Lyly's motivation is clear 
enough.

 >... But Shakespeare and his fellow actors depended
 >on those playwrights, so Shakespeare would likely have wanted
 >to stay in their good graces...

Which could have best been achieved with a clear statement from Chettle, 
that KH did not provide.  But, how was S staying in the good graces of 
other playwrights by going to Chettle, a printer, and for essentially no 
result?  Chettle had nothing directly to do with stage acting, in those 
days, and S wasn't having his plays printed in those days, so Chettle 
would have meant little or nothing to him.

Why would S need Chettle to be friendly with other playwrights?  And it 
was Greene's essential point, and complaint, that "Shake-scene," the 
actor, wrote his own plays.

 >As for Lyly, he would seem to have been insulted much less than
 >the others, ...

It wasn't that Lyly was personally insulted, but he would have had that 
problem of being associated with alleged atheists.

 >.... I would add, that Lyly had been around a long time,
 >so it would seem odd to me that Chettle didn't know him. ...

The English class system was a virtually tangible presence in those 
days.  Chettle was the son of a London dyer, who had been an apprentice 
stationer, and he was the junior partner in the printing company that 
did GW.  There's no chance he would have been in Lyly's social circle.

 >..., he wouldn't have had to
 >be told by "divers of worship" that he was an upstanding fellow,
 >considering Lyly's reputation then.

Yes, that's the exact point.  Chettle would have known about the reports 
of the diverse of worship about Lyly either from what he'd read, or from 
general talk about people.

 >Nothing with Shakespeare's name on it? I don't understand
 >what that has to do with it. ...

It's the anachronism, for one thing.  "Shakespeare" was not a famous 
name at that time, as far as any evidence shows.  V & A hadn't been 
published yet.  The basic problem in taking S as the second person who 
visited Chettle is that Chettle's description doesn't match anything 
documented about S in 1592.  There isn't any evidence that any persons 
of high status would have had anything to say about S in 1592.

 >Read my essay. Chettle's preface is full of sloppy grammar
 >and illogic, ...

I flatly disagree.  Chettle's writing is "literary," which in 
Elizabethan terms can get pretty wild, but it's both grammatical and 
logical, when you wade through it.

 >Is the Chettle preface on the Internet somewhere, by the way?

There's a pretty good original spelling copy of Kind-hearts here, the 
whole thing.

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/%7Erbear/kind.html

--Jeff

_______________________________________________________________
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.

T. W. Baldwin,

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0256  Friday, 31 March 2006

[1] 	From: 	David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 14:20:39 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0250 T. W. Baldwin, William Shakespere's Small Latine 
& Lesse Greeke

[2] 	From: 	Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 15:25:51 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0250 T. W. Baldwin, William Shakespere's Small Latine 
& Lesse Greeke

[3] 	From: 	Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 31 Mar 2006 16:11:21 +0100
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0250 T. W. Baldwin, William Shakespere's Small Latine 
& Lesse Greeke


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 14:20:39 -0500
Subject: 17.0250 T. W. Baldwin, William Shakespere's Small 
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0250 T. W. Baldwin, William Shakespere's Small 
Latine & Lesse Greeke

On the inability to search the on-line Baldwin electronically (my thanks 
to Gabriel Egan, who gives real meaning to the term "scholarly 
community): as I recall, the index to that book is pretty thorough; that 
was the only search tool for decades, indeed centuries, and a lot of 
good scholarship got done. Checking indices and riffling pages has this 
virtue, too, by contrast with the Find window: you sometimes stumble 
over really useful stuff you didn't know you were looking for--the same 
virtue as open-shelf searches for books as against the electronic catalog.

Dave Evett

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 15:25:51 -0500
Subject: 17.0250 T. W. Baldwin, William Shakespere's Small 
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0250 T. W. Baldwin, William Shakespere's Small 
Latine & Lesse Greeke

Anyone who follows Gabriel Egan's copyright advice will be able to reach 
me at the email address above, unless the plaintiff calls first.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 31 Mar 2006 16:11:21 +0100
Subject: 17.0250 T. W. Baldwin, William Shakespere's Small 
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0250 T. W. Baldwin, William Shakespere's Small 
Latine & Lesse Greeke

Jim Blackie wrote

 >The pdf file is apparently a compilation of the TIFF images
 >of the pages (noted elsewhere); as such, one cannot find
 >"words." There are none, as far as the search engine knows.

True-but a PDF can contain a layer of ASCII too, cunningly hidden under 
the images and allowing searching that seems to perform the miracle of 
reading the words in the image. You just need the ASCII, and as I said 
the publisher's withholding that.

 >The task must have taken an enormous amount of time  . . .

Without wishing to prejudice my claim that I imbued these PDFs with my 
own Intellectual Property (which as we all know is supposed to involve 
straining one's mind), I can report that no, it was in fact a doddle. 
WGET is a standard Unix tool (get your sysadmin to install it if it's 
not there already) and it does all that I described with this simple 
command:

     WGET -r http://whatever.site.you.want.to.hoover

The -r switch makes it recursively borrow down to get everything. That 
creates a tree including the folder full of GIFs. The product Advanced 
Batch Converter (Google it for more info) turns those into TIFFs and the 
full version of Adobe Acrobat allows you to import a stack of TIFFs to 
make one PDF.

In all this, the software that behaved least well was, predictably, the 
most expensive: Adobe Acrobat. Version 5.0 chokes on importing more than 
50 TIFFs at a go, so the one bit of the job that was a fag was doing 750 
images in batches of 50.  That turned a 5-minute job into a 15-minute 
job. I like enough SHAKSPERians well enough to spare this labour on 
their behalf.

Naturally, I have no connection to the makers of WGET, Adobe Acrobat, or 
Advanced Batch Converter. I'm just a satisfied user.

Gabriel Egan

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Shakespeare in Time Magazine (Europe)

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0257  Friday, 31 March 2006

[1] 	From: 	Hugh Grady <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 17:32:03 -0500
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0251 Shakespeare in Time Magazine (Europe)

[2] 	From: 	Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 14:57:55 -0800 (PST)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0251 Shakespeare in Time Magazine (Europe)


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Hugh Grady <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 17:32:03 -0500
Subject: 17.0251 Shakespeare in Time Magazine (Europe)
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0251 Shakespeare in Time Magazine (Europe)

Today's post raises some interesting issues. Can "aesthetics" exist as a 
concept within Postmodernist discourse?  I hope so.  I'm writing a book 
trying to combine aesthetic and Postmodernist theory, via the Frankfurt 
School aesthetic theory of Adorno and Benjamin. I assure you it can be 
done!  It doesn't mean you have to posit, like Kant, some kind of 
intersubjectively constructed "objective" ranking of authors, of course. 
   Ranking always depends on what your criteria are and is always open 
to dispute. A harmless pastime, perhaps-do you like top 10 lists? But 
cultural prestige can be measured in some ways, and who would contest 
that Shakespeare is at the top of that particular list. And personally, 
I don't know of a better playwright.

Ed Taft, interesting as always, raises the question about genius. Kant 
defined a genius as the artist who creates the rules of a certain form, 
without concepts. That's a definition I can accept. But in our culture 
it seems often to imply a kind of ineffable brain structure, and to me 
this ignores what Thomas Edison said:  Genius is 10% inspiration, 90% 
perspiration. And of course "geniuses" tend to come in clusters--5th 
century Athens, Renaissance Florence, etc.-suggesting to me that 
something other than innate brain-power is at work!

Best,
Hugh Grady

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 14:57:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 17.0251 Shakespeare in Time Magazine (Europe)
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0251 Shakespeare in Time Magazine (Europe)

Dear All,

You know it never ceases to amaze me how people always wish to 
'contextualise' these days.

I am probably the biggest fan of Nashe I know - I read him at least as 
often as Shakespeare and quote him in life far more often. But let's 
face it - he ain't Shakespeare. He doesn't have anything like Hamlet or 
Macbeth. Of course all you in the back - You're right - he only has one 
play - and Greene is dead and so is Kyd and Marlowe et al.

So what. Dead or not we read them and go on to read Fletcher (actually 
quite under-rated and perhaps Shakespeare's true inheritor), Webster, 
Ford, Rowley et al. But once again I say - play cards WITH WHAT WE HAVE 
- and see. Line for line, play for play, Shakespeare wins. Shakespeare 
has more. Shakespeare encompasses.

And Bach invents Mozart. etc. This is the way of the world sorry.

All best,
Marcus (who would give dust a tongue?) Dahl.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Henry IV, Part 1 Query

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0255  Friday, 31 March 2006

[1] 	From: 	Stuart Manger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 18:17:56 +0100
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0252 Henry IV, Part 1 Query

[2] 	From: 	Thomas Larque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 18:51:20 +0100
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0252 Henry IV, Part 1 Query

[3] 	From: 	Michael B. Luskin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 12:57:00 EST
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0244 Henry IV, Part 1 Query

[4] 	From: 	Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 14:37:52 -0800
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0244 Henry IV, Part 1 Query


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Stuart Manger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 18:17:56 +0100
Subject: 17.0252 Henry IV, Part 1 Query
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0252 Henry IV, Part 1 Query

Wow!! On the contrary!! I moved to teach in the area (Cumbria UK) 
precisely because I loved the weight of vowel, rhythm of delivery, 
consonant creaminess and punch, ant and lilt the accents brought to 
Shakespeare, Wordsworth particularly, and many others. Patronising them 
was as far from my thoughts as one can imagine!

The first Macbeth I directed here crackled with aggression and menace 
the like of which you simply cannot get anywhere else, and Shakespeare's 
language vividly comes alive - as Northern Broadsides have so well revealed.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Thomas Larque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 18:51:20 +0100
Subject: 17.0252 Henry IV, Part 1 Query
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0252 Henry IV, Part 1 Query

 >It is not at all a clear-cut issue, but it seems to me that regional
 >accents are not automatically associated with social class in Early
 >Modern literature.  I think this can be explained by the probability
 >that just about *everyone* in the Early Modern period spoke with
 >some kind of regionally identifiable accent.

I wonder what part Edgar's transformation in "King Lear" might play in 
informing this debate?  Edgar clearly makes a shift in accents in order 
to become a peasant, and then accidentally starts to shift back.  His 
father tells him "Methinks thy voice is alter'd; and thou speak'st / In 
better phrase and matter than thou didst" and "Methinks you're better 
spoken". When confronted by Oswald, Edgar goes into a special "peasant" 
accent and what certainly seems like a regional dialect.

***

OSWALD
Wherefore, bold peasant,
Darest thou support a publish'd traitor? Hence;
Lest that the infection of his fortune take
Like hold on thee. Let go his arm.

EDGAR
Ch'ill not let go, zir, without vurther 'casion.

OSWALD
Let go, slave, or thou diest!

EDGAR
Good gentleman, go your gait, and let poor volk
pass. An chud ha' bin zwaggered out of my life,
'twould not ha' bin zo long as 'tis by a vortnight.
Nay, come not near th' old man; keep out, che vor
ye, or ise try whether your costard or my ballow be
the harder: ch'ill be plain with you.

OSWALD
Out, dunghill!

EDGAR
Ch'ill pick your teeth, zir: come; no matter vor
your foins.

GLOUCESTER
Methinks you're better spoken.

***

Does this mean that certain regional dialects *were* associated with 
class? I honestly don't know the answer without further study, but it 
might well suggest it.

Walter Ralegh famously had a regional accent, and - according to Alan 
Nelson, Oxford's biographer - the Earl of Oxford probably had one as 
well (Nelson calls his spellings evidence "that Oxford's English was 
strongly dialectical and even provincial" - 
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/SPELL/Opinion.html).  Although 
this clearly did not prevent Ralegh or Oxford from standing high on the 
social ladder in the courtly classes, did this make them seem more 
countrified than their London-accented courtly associates?  Maybe 
somebody with more knowledge of this area might be able to tell us.

Globe actor Yolanda Vazquez, writing for the "adopt an actor" audience 
of 2005, gives the apparent view of the Globe's expert in "Original 
Pronunciation", who was training the actors for "Troilus and Cressida".

"What I find really interesting is that every character speaks with the 
same OP accent: there's no class differentiation. Supposedly at that 
time class didn't affect the way people spoke, which is the same for 
many countries today. I know that in Spain, in Andalusia for instance, 
we all speak with the same accent and the only way that you would know 
if somebody's from a particular social strata is through their use of 
language; that might show lack of education, and therefore you might 
suppose that the person is of a lower social class - but it's not about 
accent."

Edgar's "che vor ye" speeches suggest that this - at least - is not 
entirely accurate, and that regional accents might well have had a class 
implication for Renaissance speakers, actors, and audiences, on at least 
some occasions.

Thomas Larque.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Michael B. Luskin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 12:57:00 EST
Subject: 17.0244 Henry IV, Part 1 Query
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0244 Henry IV, Part 1 Query

I am still interested in opinions as to why Hotspur is so hostile and 
unpleasant to his co rebels.  He comes close to braking his alliances 
with them, and they certainly becomes less interested n their joint 
military efforts.  Why does he deal with them so?

Michael B. Luskin

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 14:37:52 -0800
Subject: 17.0244 Henry IV, Part 1 Query
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0244 Henry IV, Part 1 Query

Jonathan Hope wrote:

 >I also find it interesting that Shakespeare most often associates
 >dialect with national rather than regional identity.  As Paula
 >Blank notes in her book (*Broken English*), there is surprisingly
 >little direct representation of regional dialect in Shakespeare . . .

I have been told that the following exchange at the Capulets' party, 
with its several -er syllables and "pentycost", is in a West of England 
dialect, not to tell us that the Capulets are from there, since we are 
in Italy, but to show that they are nouveau riche provincials, thus 
underlining what a great catch the noble Countie Paris is.

1. Capu.
      *     *     *
Nay sit, nay sit, good Cozin Capulet,
For you and I are past our dauncing daies:
How long 'ist now since last your selfe and I
Were in a Maske?

2. Capu.
Berlady thirty yeares

1. Capu.
What man: 'tis not so much, 'tis not so much,
'Tis since the Nuptiall of Lucentio
Come Pentycost as quickely as it will,
Some fiue and twenty yeares, and then we Maskt.

2. Cap.
'Tis more, 'tis more, his Sonne is elder sir:
His Sonne is thirty.

Is this so? I'm a native of the colonies and can identify very little 
regional distinction in English English, even when I can hear it.

Bob Projansky

_______________________________________________________________
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.