2010

FYI: ShakesPalin

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0350  Thursday, 26 August 2010

From:         John W Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         August 3, 2010 12:03:21 AM EDT
Subject: 21.0338  FYI: ShakesPalin
Comment:      Re: SHK 21.0338  FYI: ShakesPalin

Ward Elliott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

>Kennedy for being the first to 
>identify John Ford as the author of the Funeral Elegy,

God! no. 

You, like Ron Rosenbaum, have confused me with Richard Kennedy, a rabid 
Oxfordian who would not even have been interested in the Funeral Elegy if it had 
not been that, had Shakespeare truly written it, that would have ruined forever 
any supposed case for Brave Sir Neddie.


_______________________________________________________________
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.

Two Gents at Stratford Festival

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0349  Thursday, 26 August 2010

[1]  From:      David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:      August 2, 2010 11:11:09 PM EDT
     Subj:      Re: SHK 21.0340  Two Gents at Stratford Festival

[2]  From:      Mark Aune <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:      August 3, 2010 7:04:37 AM EDT
     Subj:      RE: SHK 21.0340  Two Gents at Stratford Festival


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:         David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         August 2, 2010 11:11:09 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0340  Two Gents at Stratford Festival
Comment:      Re: SHK 21.0340  Two Gents at Stratford Festival

>I find it impossible to believe that even (or particularly) a trained and 
>therefore traumatised bear could be relied upon to enter and exit on cue
>without being led on a chain, which would defeat the purpose of the effect.
>They are unpredictable. I certainly would not relish being in the vicinity 
>of a grown bear that wasn't both chained and muzzled-particularly in the 
>equally unpredictable and scary-to-the-bear public theatre audience.

A question here is whether the play was first performed at Blackfriars, with 
something like a lights-down at the end of the first half. If so, the bear did 
not have to do more than appear briefly through the center-stage entrance, 
perhaps through a pair of curtains, which means that a bear-ward at the other 
end of a controlling chain would have been dimly if at all visible. And a 
similar effect could have been managed, I think, at the Globe.

David Evett

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:         Mark Aune <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         August 3, 2010 7:04:37 AM EDT
Subject: 21.0340  Two Gents at Stratford Festival
Comment:      RE: SHK 21.0340  Two Gents at Stratford Festival

Dear all,

Having just returned from Stratford ON, I can confirm that a real dog, a basset 
hound named Otto. Its understudy is named Keppy, breed unknown.

As for Winter's Tale, the bear was not real, but impressive.

Best,
Mark


_______________________________________________________________
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.

Duration of Performances and Lengths of Plays

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0346  Thursday, 26 August 2010

[1]  From:      Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:      Thursday, August 26, 2010      
     Subj:      Duration of Performances and Lengths of Plays
 
[2]  From:      Steve Urkowitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:      Saturday, August 21, 2010 10:50 PM
     Subj:      Duration of Performances and Lengths of Plays
 
[3]  From:      Michael J. Hirrel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:      Monday, August 23, 2010 11:03 PM
     Subj:      Duration of Performances and Lengths of Plays
 
[4]  From:      David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:      August 2, 2010 10:14:28 PM EDT
     Subj:      Re: SHK 21.0335  Duration of Performances and Lengths of Plays
 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:         Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         Thursday, August 26, 2010      
Subject:      Duration of Performances and Lengths of Plays 

On Tuesday, July 20, 2010 (http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2010/0300.html), I 
announced that "The lead article, Michael J. Hirrel's "Duration of Performances 
and Lengths of Plays: How Shall We Beguile the Lazy Time?" in my most recent 
Shakespeare Quarterly (61.2 (2010): 159-182) addresses some of the most 
fascinating issues being debated in Early Modern theatrical scholarship: the 
length of Elizabethan-Jacobean performances and the subsequent effect that 
performance time had on the length of those playtexts." 

At the end of this post I asked, "There are many subscribers to this list who 
are better versed than I in these matters, and I am curious what they think 
about Hirrel's essay."

I received a message from Steve Urkowitz that he had submitted two responses in 
the discussion, but they apparently had gotten lost or overlooked. His responses 
are below. Also, I receive a message from the author of the article Michael 
Hirrel who asked if he could respond; his messages are also included below.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:         Steve Urkowitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         Saturday, August 21, 2010 10:50 PM
Subject:      Duration of Performances and Lengths of Plays

(1) July 20

Michael Hirrel's Shakespeare Quarterly essay will prove to be one of the most 
important correctives to unfounded textual theories and factoids which have slid 
into dominance over the last few decades.  Proposals that Shakespeare's company 
took his long "original" scripts and trimmed them down to two thirds of their 
length in order to fit into a hypothetically desirable shorter span have been 
widely accepted. Those proposals, Hirrel shows, have been based on extremely 
partial readings of ambiguous evidence frequently taken out of context. 
Consulting more documentary material, he is able to show that the more extensive 
evidence about the length of a theatrical performance by adult professional 
companies might be best interpreted as representing a relatively constant, 
approximately four hour total span of time when the audience would be in the 
playhouse within which would be played a play plus accompanying entertainments 
before and after. The accompaniments could run long or short, depending on the 
length of the play. The key here is that Hirrel cites and incorporates into his 
argument lots of evidence, and (unlike Lukas Erne) he doesn't have to dismiss 
what the evidence insists upon. 

If indeed Hirrel's argument is recognized for what I feel is its valid 
interpretation of a far wider array of evidence than had previously been 
offered, then arguments about the provenance of Shakespearean "bad quartos" will 
need vast re-evaluation. We may have to go back to reconsider that the 
manuscript underlying Q1 Hamlet was in existence prior to the manuscript 
underlying Q2. Same-same for the earliest printings of Romeo & Juliet, Merry 
Wives, Henry V, and Henry VI parts 2 and 3. 

Joys of reconsidering, 
Steve Urquartowitz, resurgens

==================================================================
(2) July 30

The reasonable concern about daylight as a constraint on the length of performance 
is simply not supported by what we can discover from the records. Robert B Graves, 
LIGHTING THE SHAKESPEAREAN STAGE, 1567-1642, demonstrates that daylight was not a 
factor. Instead, he cites ample evidence that plays carried on in very dim light, 
sometimes augmented by candles or cresset-lights, even in winter. Evidence should 
trump even the most reasonable-sounding theory.

Ever,
Steve Urquartowitz

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:         Michael J. Hirrel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         Monday, August 23, 2010 11:03 PM
Subject:      Duration of Performances and Lengths of Plays

Dear Hardy, 
 
I have read the string of posts about my story with considerable interest, and I 
thank you for giving me an opportunity to comment. I also want to thank the 
posters themselves. It's truly gratifying to think that my story has stimulated 
so much fascinating discussion.  To them, individually:    
 
Nicole Coonradt:
 
Good question. No, in fact no one at the time actually counted the number of 
lines in a play. Number counts are a modern construct. But they are useful to us 
nonetheless. As I say in the article, acting companies were experienced buyers 
of play scripts. They probably knew just by looking at a script essentially how 
much time it would take to perform. And they probably knew in advance how much 
time they wanted to devote to a particular play. That information presumably was 
communicated to the playwrights, who in turn were experienced at their task, and 
knew how to translate time into script length.  
 
John W. Kennedy:
 
Macbeth, as Hardy points out, is surprisingly short for a Shakespeare tragedy. 
Numerous clues in the Folio text, which is the only one we have, suggest the 
reason. The text as printed has been cut considerably. Why? Figure that one out 
and I will buy you dinner at a very good restaurant. But I will note in this 
respect that Macbeth is utterly an anomaly. Otherwise, the Folio gives us more 
or less complete texts. To earn you dinner, your explanation must account for 
that fact.  
 
Gabriel Egan, and posters in the following colloquy:
 
This is an interesting discussion. The choice of verbs between "see" and "hear" 
may well be indicative of psychological predispositions. But before one pushes 
this evidence too far, let me note that opera fans, of whom I am one, typically 
say that they are going to "see" an opera performance. Almost none of them are 
going primarily for that purpose. A good thing too, considering the acting 
skills of most opera singers.  
 
Justin Alexander:
 
Good points. I completely agree that we must not make assumptions about how long 
the groundlings would have stood. It's not our culture.  What do we know about 
what they "would" have done? The concept "would have done" should be banished 
from scholarly discussion about the Elizabethans. In this case, alone let's 
consider just a few points. No, we would not stand for three and one quarter 
hours to see/hear a Shakespeare play. But how long would we stand to see/hear 
the Rolling Stones? I seem to recall standing with a very large crowd for about 
five hours. On the other hand, few Elizabethans had desk jobs, and fewer still 
among the groundlings. Most of them stood all day just to earn their livings. 
And if they stood as well in the late afternoon at the Globe, at least they 
could move about there, and come and go as they pleased.  
 
William Ray, Larry Weiss, Tom Reedy and Steve Roth:
 
Thank you all. These are valuable contributions. If I do a revision, I'll be 
thinking about whether to use them, and if I do I intend to cite you guys.  
 
Aaron Azlant:
 
The availability of light is indeed an important factor to be considered with 
respect to the lengths of performances. I discuss it at pages 161-62 and 167-69 
in the story.  
 
Again, Hardy, thank you so much for this opportunity to vent, and equal thanks 
to your posters.
 
Very truly yours, 
Mike

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:         David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         August 2, 2010 10:14:28 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0335  Duration of Performances and Lengths of Plays
Comment:      Re: SHK 21.0335  Duration of Performances and Lengths of Plays

As I understand it, one of the major considerations in play performance length is 
the amount of sunlight available in the afternoon before dark. Presumably the 
FrankenHamlet that modern editors have assembled out of folio/quarto editions, for 
instance, would have been too long to accommodate this concern.

Even in mid-April, the sun sets in London right around 9 p.m. (solar time). 
Allow an hour for folks to get home before the city became dark and dangerous. 
Enough daylight after 1 p.m. for two performances of three-plus hours.

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=136&month=4&year=2010&obj
=sun&afl=-11&day=1

Temporally,
Dave Evett



_______________________________________________________________
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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * *Previous message:* Hardy M. Cook: "FYI: ShakesPalin" <0299.html>
    * *Messages sorted by:* [ date ] <date.html#300> [ thread ]
      <index.html#300> [ subject ] <subject.html#300> 


	
<http://www.shaksper.net/index.html>
<http://www.shaksper.net/current.html>
<http://www.shaksper.net/archives/files/index.html>
<http://www.shaksper.net/archives/index.html>
<http://www.shaksper.net/search.html>

about SHAKSPER <http://www.shaksper.net/index.html> | current postings
<http://www.shaksper.net/current.html> | submitted papers
<http://www.shaksper.net/archives/files/index.html> | browse SHAKSPER
<http://www.shaksper.net/archives/index.html> | search SHAKSPER
<http://www.shaksper.net/search.html>
	 

/Copyright (c) 2004, Hardy M. Cook
<http://www.bowiestate.edu/academics/english/hardymcook.htm>, design by
Eric Luhrs <http://www.shaksper.net/tech.html>. All rights reserved./

An Allusion or a Coincidence

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0347  Thursday, 26 August 2010

From:         Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         August 2, 2010 7:50:28 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0333  An Allusion or a Coincidence
Comment:      RE: SHK 21.0333  An Allusion or a Coincidence

Much thanks any to Joseph Egert for the link to SJ Schonfeld's "A Hebrew Source for 
the MOV." Heretofore I have put no credence at all in "there's Hebrew stuff in 
Shakespeare!" but Mr. Schonfeld has provided a reasonable (to me) way for that to 
happen.

Recent DNA studies have charted the path of Jewish migration through various 
nations. It was a shock to me to find my family name, as is, as a place name in 
Italy.

"When in 1492 Jews were expelled from Spain a great number of them took refuge in 
Italy. In the same year Jews were expelled from Sicily. The Spanish Jews arrived in 
Tuscany, Naples, Ferrara and in some other towns. In Rome and Genoa they experienced 
hunger, plague, and poverty and in many cases were forced to accept baptism in order 
to escape starvation."

"In 1516 the first Ghetto was estabilished in Venezia (Venice). Later other ghettos 
were established. The Church, deeply involved into the fight against Reformation, 
began a fanatic hunt of forbidden books and in 1553 in the principal cities of Italy 
were burned all the found copies of the Talmud."

http://www.italian-family-history.com/jewish/historypage.html

It seems to me that two things, needing money to prevent starvation and wanting to 
preserve Jewish stories and literature from the fire, would be a very reasonable 
incentive for enterprising young men to rewrite Jewish stories to fit a 
Christian/Italian venue. (Hey, Irving Berlin wrote "White Christmas.") Once the 
stories were in Italian, other enterprising young translators could earn a penny 
putting them into English, French, wherever they could sell them. Playwrights could 
then ransack them for material.

I'm going to stop poo-pooing the Hebrew connection. I now find it quaintly 
reasonable.


_______________________________________________________________
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.

Frank Kermode: 1919-2010

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0345  Thursday, 26 August 2010

From:         Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         Thursday, August 26, 2010      
Subject:      Frank Kermode: 1919-2010

_London Review of Books_ announced that its long-time contributor Frank Kermode 
died on August 17 at the age of 90:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/contributors/frank-kermode

Frank Kermode, who died on 17 August at the age of 90, was the author of many 
books, including Romantic Image (1957), The Sense of an Ending (1967) and 
Shakespeare's Language (2000). He was the Lord Northcliffe Professor of Modern 
English Literature at University College London and the King Edward VII 
Professor of English Literature at Cambridge University. He inspired the 
founding of the London Review in 1979, and wrote more than 200 pieces for the 
paper.

On August 18, the Washington Post carried the AP announcement by Raphael G. 
Satter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/08/18/AR2010081803195.html?sub=AR

Literary critic Frank Kermode dies in England
By Raphael G. Satter
The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 18, 2010; 3:22 PM

LONDON -- Respected literary critic and Shakespeare scholar Frank Kermode has 
died, his publisher said. He was 90.

Regarded by some as Britain's foremost critics, Kermode was instrumental in the 
creation of the London Review of Books, and his accessibility made him a kind of 
bridge between the donnish world of academic literature and novels as they were 
read by everyday people.

"He was one of the great conversationalists of our literature," Alan Samson, 
Kermode's publisher, told The Associated Press. "His wit and wisdom in speaking 
about writing is something that I will always remember."

Samson said Kermode was best known for his influential book, "The Sense of an 
Ending" - a witty meditation on the relationship between fiction and crisis. He 
was also a respected student of Shakespeare and he would return to the Bard 
often over the course of his career, which took in everything from the Bible to 
deconstructionist theory.

Kermode was born on Nov. 29, 1919, in the small town of Douglas on the Isle of 
Man, between Ireland and Great Britain. Raised in modest circumstances, he would 
eventually become an establishment figure, writing for The New Statesman and The 
Guardian as well as judging Britain's prestigious Booker Prize.

His dry and occasionally self-abasing memoir, published in 1995, traced his 
uncertain path to the top tier of Britain's literary firmament.

The book opens with a line from Shakespeare's "Coriolanus" - "He was a kind of 
nothing, titleless" - and goes on to describe a disappointing child who grew 
into a young writer of indifferent talent. Academia, he said, was the only route 
left open to him.

"My poetry wasn't up to much, so there was nothing left for me except to become 
a critic, preferably with a paying job in a university," he wrote.

Kermode first spent a stint with the Royal Navy, spending much of his time in a 
thankless (and ultimately futile) attempt to lay booms around off the Icelandic 
coast and serving under a series of eccentric commanding officers. Demobilized 
in 1946, he went on to teach at the University of Durham, in northern England - 
the first in a series of increasingly prestigious academic posts at University 
College, London, Cambridge University, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.

[ . . . ]

The Washington Post also published the following day a tribute to Kermode by T. 
Rees Shapiro:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/08/18/AR2010081806386.html

Frank Kermode, 90
British literary critic Frank Kermode dies at age 90
By T. Rees Shapiro
Thursday, August 19, 2010

Frank Kermode, 90, an English literary critic who wrote masterfully, and in a 
digestible fashion, on a range of interests, including Shakespeare, the Bible 
and Kurt Vonnegut, died Aug. 17 in Cambridge, England. No cause of death was 
reported.

Considered one Britain's most prolific and admired academics -- he was knighted 
by Queen Elizabeth II in 1991 -- Mr. Kermode's critiques were often praised for 
their graceful prose and fresh perspective. He wrote his first book at age 20 
and his last, on the works of E.M. Forster, this past year.

Mr. Kermode held teaching positions at some of world's most prestigious 
universities, including Cambridge University in England, Harvard, Princeton and 
Yale. Through his articles for scholarly journals and periodicals such as the 
New York Review of Books and London Review of Books, Mr. Kermode helped guide 
his readers to understand the idiosyncrasies and nuances of a particular work, 
as well as the literary conventions it employed and traditions to which it 
belonged.

[ . . . ]

As a scholar, Mr. Kermode sought to bring new ideas on literary theory into the 
classroom, helping introduce French theorists such as Roland Barthes and Michel 
Foucault into British academia in the 1960s. He later distanced himself from 
some of their more arcane notions of literary interpretation but remained 
committed to academic freedom.

He left his prestigious job at University College London in 1982 after an 
unsuccessful battle to achieve tenure for a younger colleague who advocated a 
structuralist view of literature and film. 

Alison Flood wrote the following for The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/18/frank-kermode-dies-aged-90

Celebrated critic Frank Kermode dies aged 90
Prominent for more than half-a-century, he combined an eminent scholarly career 
with popular success
Alison Flood
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 18 August 2010 12.22 BST 

Widely acclaimed as Britain's foremost literary critic, Sir Frank Kermode died 
yesterday in Cambridge at the age of 90.

The London Review of Books, for which the critic and scholar wrote more than 200 
pieces, announced his death this morning. Kermode inspired the founding of the 
magazine in 1979, after writing an article in the Observer calling for a new 
literary magazine.

Prominent in literary criticism since the 1950s, Kermode held "virtually every 
endowed chair worth having in the British Isles", according to his former 
colleague John Sutherland, from King Edward VII professor of English literature 
at Cambridge to Lord Northcliffe professor of modern English literature at 
University College London and professor of poetry at Harvard, along with 
honorary doctorates from universities around the world. He was knighted in 1991, 
the first literary critic to be so honoured since William Empson.

A renowned Shakespearean, publishing Shakespeare's Language in 2001, Kermode's 
books range from works on Spenser and Donne and the memoir Not Entitled to last 
year's Concerning EM Forster.

[ . . .]

The complete articles can be found at the various web site by using the included 
links.


_______________________________________________________________
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.