2008

Southampton Portrait Discovered

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0265  Tuesday, 6 May 2008

[1] 	From:	Nicole Coonradt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Monday, 05 May 2008 18:28:31 +0000
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0259 Southampton Portrait Discovered

[2] 	From:	Mike Shapiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Tuesday, 06 May 2008 00:35:37 +0000
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0252 Southampton Portrait Discovered


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Nicole Coonradt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Monday, 05 May 2008 18:28:31 +0000
Subject: 19.0259 Southampton Portrait Discovered
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0259 Southampton Portrait Discovered

Apparently her teeth were black? No wonder she's not smiling!  Thanks 
for sharing this, JD. I had just recently asked a friend about this at a 
different forum and so am happy to pass it on.

Best,
Nicole

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Mike Shapiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Tuesday, 06 May 2008 00:35:37 +0000
Subject: 19.0252 Southampton Portrait Discovered
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0252 Southampton Portrait Discovered

Can any other members speculate why a portrait artist would paint over 
such a work? Were panels expensive during that period? If so, why? Are 
there any other known instance(s) of portraits of important court 
members that were painted over? I understand it happened with poor 
artists who could not afford new canvas but are there other reasons . . 
. such as it being easier to work over an established physical form?

Mike Shapiro

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Redheads Revisted

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0264  Tuesday, 6 May 2008

From:		Nicole Coonradt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Monday, 05 May 2008 18:42:17 +0000
Subject:	Redheads Revisted

A friend in the UK tells me that the RSC History plays run is excellent 
and he heard that the Boyd production of RII has the King as an obvious 
redhead and that there are distinct parallels to Elizabeth I. I would 
love to hear if any members have been lucky enough to see this (I heard 
was sold-out) and what the reactions are. In the meanwhile, I'll look 
for some reviews.

Best,
Nicole Coonradt

_______________________________________________________________
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.

FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0262  Monday, 5 May 2008

From:		David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Sunday, 04 May 2008 13:09:24 -0400
Subject: 19.0235 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0235 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List

In one of the discussions on Shakespeare's intentions, Al Magary 
presented the list with the comments of Ron Rosenbaum (printed in 
Slate.com) on the emptiness of some of the biographical references on 
Shakespeare.

Rosenbaum had written:

It's unfortunately typical of the slippery, unresolvable-and often 
tedious and irrelevant-conflicts of Shakespearean biography.... and 
waste time on such evidence-deprived controversies as the recent dust-up 
between Germaine Greer in Shakespeare's Wife and Stephen Greenblatt 
(initially in Will in the World over the unanswerable question: Did 
Shakespeare love his wife?  (Greer: Yes. Greenblatt: No. Actual 
evidence: Nil.)"

My own comment now is whether there is this total lack of knowledge of 
Shakespeare's intentions that Al highlights. For if you consult Sonnet 
145, you in fact get a portrait of the poet's wife, Anne Hatheway. On 
this, let me inform the list that even scholar Helen Vendler 
acknowledges that Anne's name appears in this sonnet in line 13, "I 
hate, from HATE AWAY she threw," but her name also appears numerous 
additional times if the sonnet is carefully examined. Consider, for 
example, that you can read Anne's name a time or two more in elliptical 
form on lines 9 to 13:

[9] ... hate
...
[12]                  ... away.
[13]... hate ... HATE AWAY

And then, consider the devices in the sonnet lines 5-9, that, brought 
together, yield "h-aight - aW-A-I" and "hat'e - aW-A-I" as shown in the 
configurations of the sonnet as follow:

[5]     aight
[6]    h
[7]   Wa
[8]   A                                 a n
[9]   I hate

Turning to the words of the sonnet itself, you can read how loving the 
poet is to her. She has "lips that Love did make" and she has "mercie" 
"in her heart" and has an "ever sweet tongue" that pronounces "gentle 
do[o]me"- not blood curdling, shrewish shrieks. The poet is absolutely 
enamored of her and cringes at the fact that somehow she happens to be 
displeased.

Since, as some language experts have told us, the word "and" was 
pronounced "an...," Anne turns out to have saved the poet's life when in 
the final line the poet tells "An... saved my life saying not you."

Concerning his wife, if we are guided by Shakespeare's own words, we 
find a woman altogether different from conventional stereotypes. She was 
not the silent type that Germaine Greer imagines in her book, 
Shakespeare's Wife, though Greer is correct about the resourcefulness 
that such women in the period were likely to exhibit.

If we are discussing intention, we might leave open the intentions of 
the poet as he communicates this in his sonnet.

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.

Roundtable Digest: Shakespeare's Intentions

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0263  Tuesday, 6 May 2008

From:		Hugh Grady <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Monday, 5 May 2008 19:57:13 -0400
Subject: 19.0250 Roundtable Digest: Shakespeare's Intentions
Comment:	RE: SHK 19.0250 Roundtable Digest: Shakespeare's Intentions

A quick observational comment on the in-progress Roundtable:  the first 
two substantial posts by Cary DiPietro and John Drakakis constitute some 
of the best critical argumentation ever to appear in SHAKSPER in my 
experience.

Congratulations.

--Hugh Grady

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0261  Monday, 5 May 2008

[1] 	From:	Diana Price <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Friday, 2 May 2008 13:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0255 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6

[2] 	From:	Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Friday, 02 May 2008 18:07:39 -0500
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0255 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Diana Price <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Friday, 2 May 2008 13:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 19.0255 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0255 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6

John Briggs questions the viability of my theory that a "ne" performance 
is one at which Henslowe charged double admissions. In 1585, a German 
merchant, Samuel Kiechel, reported that in London theatres, "when they 
act anything new . . . double prices are charged." Following is an 
overview of how I approached the question (adapted from 'Henslowe's "ne" 
and "the tyeringe-howsse doore"'_ (RORD2003).

Henslowe's sums are independent of admissions for groundlings admitted 
at the main gates. The largest receipts generated by a non-"ne" 
performance are only a few shillings less than the largest "ne" 
receipts, so not all admission fees could have been doubled. My analysis 
of data includes calculating the likely attendance and configuration of 
that attendance to account for the differential.

The double price evidently was charged only at the main entrances to the 
theater. Gallery admissions were the same for "ne' and non-"ne" 
performances. Henslowe did not benefit from the second penny charged at 
the main entrances at "ne" performances.

Based on estimates made by Richard Hosley and others, I assume a maximum 
of sixteen customers entering at the tiring-house door to sit in the 
lord's room. While we do not know how much Henslowe charged for his 
lords' room, all the evidence points to 6d for regular performances.

If Henslowe charged sixteen customers double the usual rate (i.e., 12d) 
at the tiring-house door at "ne" performances, he could gross up to 192d 
or 16s. His 50% share would be 96d or 8s, so at maximum capacity, "ne" 
sums would exceed non-"ne" sums by approximately 4s. In other words, if 
this theory is viable, (and assuming that capacity crowds were close in 
number but not necessarily identical), then the difference between 
admissions collected at the tiring-house door for a sold-out "ne" and 
non-"ne" performance should be approximately 4s. As the takings 
decrease, so does the possibility of making any meaningful inferences 
about the differentials. The article sets forth several possible "box 
office reports" to examine these differentials.

I can send the complete article to anyone wishing to question this 
theory further.

Diana Price

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Friday, 02 May 2008 18:07:39 -0500
Subject: 19.0255 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0255 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6

 >John Briggs said:

 >"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.'"

Well, I'm sure I have read that it could have meant "new for Henslowe," 
which I found quite plausible. I don't quite see how that makes me not 
taking "ne" to mean "new." What I can't take it certainly to mean is 
"world premiere." I'm not sure footnoting all this would be proper if 
one is prominently assuming it does mean that to advance some larger 
argument. (With which, ironically, I probably mostly agree.)

--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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.