The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0746 Tuesday, 6 November 2007
[1] From: Sean B. Palmer <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 1 Nov 2007 17:05:45 +0000
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0736 Shakespeare as Falstaff
[2] From: Jack Heller <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 3 Nov 2007 15:37:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0736 Shakespeare as Falstaff
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sean B. Palmer <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 1 Nov 2007 17:05:45 +0000
Subject: 18.0736 Shakespeare as Falstaff
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0736 Shakespeare as Falstaff
John Briggs <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>wrote:
>Thoughts, anyone?
Given that the part was originally Oldcastle, it would be strange to
base your claim at all on evidence from the name Falstaff. Furthermore,
it's a leading role which most have presumed would call for the leading
clown, Kemp, though Malone said it was Heminges.
Of course, Falstaff was alive in Henry IV, dead in Henry V, and alive
"again" as Fastolf in Henry VI which was actually the earliest to be
written. It may be that Shakespeare played the relatively minor part of
Fastolf in 1 Henry VI, then.
The combined role in the two parts of Henry IV, however, give Falstaff
more lines than any other character besides Hamlet, and yet we hear from
Rowe that "tho' I have inquir'd, I could never meet with any further
Account of him this way, than that the top of his Performance was the
Ghost in his own /Hamlet/." The marginalia in the Glasgow first folio
quite plausibly supports this. Documentary evidence, then, does weigh
against Shakespeare taking on such a major part himself.
If Kemp were the player, I refer you to James Shaprio's elucidation (in
his _1599_) of the Kemp <->company dynamic and his theory that
Shakespeare wanted to segue away from the bawdy characters into the
melancholy of Jaques and Hamlet, and that only Kemp really prevented him
from doing this earlier or at least provided the impetus.
Lukewarm is what you got before, and I'd be very surprised if you get
anything different this time I'm afraid!
-- Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Heller <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 3 Nov 2007 15:37:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 18.0736 Shakespeare as Falstaff
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0736 Shakespeare as Falstaff
John Briggs did mean to say John Oldcastle, didn't he?
Is there any early textual evidence for suggestion that Shakespeare
played Falstaff? We do have evidence some roles, such as when the folio
of MUCH ADO starts using actors' names for speech designations where we
would put characters' names. Another problem particularly for this idea
about Falstaff is that he appears in three plays, once as the lead
character. Do we ever hear of Shakespeare taking a lead role?
Jack Heller
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
