Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2008 :: May ::
Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0255  Friday, 2 May 2008

[1] 	From:	Hannibal Hamlin <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date:	Thursday, 01 May 2008 11:23:09 -0400
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0249 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6

[2] 	From:	John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date:	Thursday, 1 May 2008 16:39:39 +0100
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0249 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Hannibal Hamlin <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:		Thursday, 01 May 2008 11:23:09 -0400
Subject: 19.0249 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0249 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6

This is all very useful. Thanks. No doubt, although John Briggs's letter 
will not be published, there will be other responses on the TLS letters 
page (nothing seems more controversial than matters of Shakespeare and 
attribution!). I'm wondering, however, whether there is a consensus on 
the validity of Vickers's methodology in making these arguments for 
reattribution?

Hannibal Hamlin
Department of English
The Ohio State University

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:		Thursday, 1 May 2008 16:39:39 +0100
Subject: 19.0249 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0249 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6

William Proctor Williams wrote:

 >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.

Well, to dispose of the last possibility, when the Admiral's Men and the 
Chamberlain's Men both performed at Newington Butts from 3 June 1594 to 
13 June 1594, there was only one "ne"[w] play: "Bellendon" [Bellin 
Dunn]. Yes, 'Henslowe's "ne" does not necessarily mean "new" ' - but it 
almost certainly does, and to pretend otherwise is probably 
irresponsible, as it leads to people like Bob Grumman thinking that they 
have "read that it merely meant (or could have merely meant) new for 
Henslowe's theatre." It would be far better if we could all agree on the 
general message that "ne" means "new", and leave the appropriate caveats 
in the footnotes.

Diana Price incautiously proposes "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." 
She also proposes "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."

As the first performance of "harey the vj" [1 Henry 6] ("ne") on 3 March 
1592 collected ?3 16s 8d, and the second performance on 7 March 1592 
(not "ne") collected ?3, this theory has an uphill struggle.

John Briggs

_______________________________________________________________
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.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.