Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2008 :: June ::
Are Those Shakespeare's "Balls"?
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0359  Wednesday, 18 June 2008

[1] From:   Jason Rhode <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
     Date:   Sunday, 15 Jun 2008 18:55:44 -0500
     Subt:   Re: SHK 19.0358 Are Those Shakespeare's "Balls"?

[2] From:   Isaac Iyov <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
     Date:   Sunday, 15 Jun 2008 20:06:41 -0700
     Subt:   Re: SHK 19.0358 Are Those Shakespeare's "Balls"?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Jason Rhode <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:       Sunday, 15 Jun 2008 18:55:44 -0500
Subject: 19.0358 Are Those Shakespeare's "Balls"?
Comment:    Re: SHK 19.0358 Are Those Shakespeare's "Balls"?

Am I understanding this right? Do we have another extant copy of Shakespeare's 
handwriting? If so, where might a facsimile of this envelope and its writing be 
found online?

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Isaac Iyov <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:       Sunday, 15 Jun 2008 20:06:41 -0700
Subject: 19.0358 Are Those Shakespeare's "Balls"?
Comment:    Re: SHK 19.0358 Are Those Shakespeare's "Balls"?

Regarding Al Magary's statement about Ron Rosenbaum, please see Jonathan Bates' 
(editor of the RSC Shakespeare) response:

http://palgrave.typepad.com/rsc/2008/06/lovers-complain.html

<ProseQuote>
A very interesting article has appeared in the best internet think-journal, 
Slate. By Ron Rosenbaum, who's on our advisory board (but didn't have anything 
to do with the decision in question), it discusses our exclusion of "Lover's 
Complaint" and inclusion of "To the Queen" in the Complete Works. Here's the 
link: do read it.

But some clarification is needed. We have not thrown the Complaint out of the 
entire edition. We have edited and annotated it, and it's here on this website. 
Furthermore, it will be included-as will The Passionate Pilgrim-in our edition 
of the Sonnets and Poems forthcoming next April. It was excluded from the print 
Complete because the argument of Vickers and others did enough to persuade us 
(mainly me, JB) that it belongs in the category of dubia-uncertain 
attribution-along with certain of the Passionate Pilgrim poems and the possibly 
Shakespearean scenes in Edward III and Arden of Faversham, which we've also 
edited on the website.

It was only possible to include 2576 pages in the Complete Works. That meant we 
had to make tough inclusion/exclusion decisions at the margins, and since it is 
an RSC, a theatre-focused, edition, the Complaint was the loser.

"To the Queen"-which we call an "epilogue" but the scholar Mick Hattaway has 
recently, interestingly, suggested may actually have been a post-performance 
prayer of a kind that was customary at court performances-was included because 
it provides a rare window onto an original Shakespearean performance. The 
provenance is very strong and, when it was played on the Stratford stage by 
Nicholas Day soon after publication, it sent an authentically Shakespearean 
shiver down the spines of all who were present. Maybe it was a bit risky, a bit 
provocative, to give it an upgrade when we were giving Lover's Complaint and 
Passionate Pilgrim downgrades-though, to repeat, not ejections-but taking risks 
and provoking debates is one of the things most worthwhile about the editorial 
project. And Rosenbaum's piece is a most welcome addition to the debate.
</ProseQuote>

_______________________________________________________________
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.
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.