The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0249 Thursday, 1 May 2008
[1] From: William Proctor Williams <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 2008 21:32:30 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
[2] From: Bob Grumman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 2008 06:08:02 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
[3] From: John Briggs <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 2008 14:41:31 +0100
Subj: Re: SHK 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
[4] From: Diana Price <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 2008 10:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: William Proctor Williams <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 2008 21:32:30 -0400
Subject: 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
Someone is going to say this pretty soon so it might as well be me.
Henslowe's "ne" does not necessarily mean "new." It can mean a range of
things from newly licensed, to newly modified, to new in the repertory,
to actually new, and, perhaps, at Newington Butts. See the introduction
to R. A. Foakes' 2nd edition of the Diary (Cambridge, 2002), pp.
xxxiv-xxxv and the note by Winifred Frazer in Notes & Queries 38 (1991)
34-35.
William Proctor Williams
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Grumman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 2008 06:08:02 -0500
Subject: 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
Thanks for the data about Henslowe's "ne" as the evidence for first
performances from Tom and John. Two plays got the tag, but I can't take
it as strong evidence for premieres. I've read that it merely meant (or
could have merely meant) new for Henslowe's theatre. The good gate
receipts for Titus may merely have meant that an old under-performed
and/or off-Broadway play was finally getting big-Name actors in a big
theatre. If more than a few plays by others that Henslowe marked "ne"
were definitely premiered when he marked them such would be good
evidence against my position, I admit. But I can't believe Shakespeare
didn't write such a junko play long before 1594. Yes, that's a very
subjective view. Maybe he wrote it long before its premiere, if its
premiere WAS in 1594--maybe when he was just hanging on with some troupe
that didn't want to do it. Then he had a break, and suddenly Titus was
appealing to Henslowe.
--Bob G.
[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Briggs <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 2008 14:41:31 +0100
Subject: 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
Thomas Pendleton wrote:
>Henslowe's record of the "ne" "harey the vj" on March 3, 1591 (for
>1592) is sometimes taken as the premiere of 1 Henry VI. But this, I
>think, is much more problematical.
"Often" or "usually" rather than "sometimes." In any case, there isn't
any other known play which it can be, and the 'rose' references in 1
Henry 6 make it the likely candidate. We don't know where 2&3 Henry 6
were performed, but it is likely to have been at The Theatre, and 1
Henry 6 may originally have been planned for there, but by the time it
was written Strange's Men had moved to the Rose - Shakespeare probably
wrote the rose-plucking scene specially. 2&3 Henry 6 may have stayed
with the Burbages at The Theatre and been taken on tour by Pembroke's
Men (whoever they were) in 1592-3.
>Bob Grumman's implicit objection that we have few (if any) records of
>Shakespearean premieres is quite accurate.
I'm sure that Steve Sohmer will be along in a minute to not only tell
you the date of the premiere of Julius Caesar, but the actual time of
the performance :-)
John Briggs
[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Diana Price <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 2008 10:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
John Pendleton and John Briggs have cited Henslowe's "ne" as an
indication that a play so marked was "new." In an article that appeared
in Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama (vol. 42, 2003), I
propose an alternative solution - that "ne" marks a performance at which
twice the usual admission fee was charged at the doors, whether that
performance was - or was not - the premiere. I also propose that
Henslowe's papers contain evidence to suggest that "ne" signifies his
shorthand for "twice" the usual entry fee, and that this theory can be
tested by examining certain revenues collected at the Rose playhouse.
Should any SHAKSPER member wish a copy of the paper, please e-mail me
off-list.
Diana Price
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
