Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Current Postings ::
S.A. Tannenbaum & The Revels Accts.

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0059  Tuesday, 12 February 2013

 

[1] From:        John Briggs < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         February 11, 2013 7:17:47 PM EST

     Subject:     SHAKSPER: S.A. Tannenbaum & The Revels Accts 

 

[2] From:        Tom Reedy < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         February 11, 2013 10:55:29 PM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Tannenbaum & Revels 

 

[3] From:        William Sutton < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         February 12, 2013 6:49:02 AM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Tannenbaum & Revels 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        John Briggs < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         February 11, 2013 7:17:47 PM EST

Subject:     SHAKSPER: S.A. Tannenbaum & The Revels Accts

 

Talking of John Payne Collier—he also “discovered” Manningham’s Diary. It is generally thought that he can’t have forged the Twelfth Night entry, but the somewhat absurd story of Richard Burbage and “William the Conqueror” must at least be questioned.

 

John Briggs

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Tom Reedy < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         February 11, 2013 10:55:29 PM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Tannenbaum & Revels

 

Just going on memory here, but IIRC the Revels Account were proved authentic by a study of the wormholes, which penetrated the writing in the same manner as they penetrated the paper.

 

Tannebaum has some very good work to his credit, but as Gerald wrote, his imperious nature was his downfall, not only because it put others off, but it prevented him from considering the possibility that he might have not been right all the time.

 

Tom Reedy

 

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        William Sutton < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         February 12, 2013 6:49:02 AM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Tannenbaum & Revels

 

Hi everyone,

 

Personally I’d never heard of Tannebaum though a look at his bibliography on his wiki entry shows he may merit investigation for his bibliographies of Drayton, Sydney, Marlowe, etc. 

 

Seriously though he debunks the entire revels accounts as a Collier forgery?!

 

Here’s a link to those accounts:

http://openlibrary.org/books/OL20467075M/Extracts_from_the_Accounts_of_the_Revels_at_Court_in_the_Reigns_of_Queen_Elizabeth_and_King_James_I

 

These accounts start in 1571 and cover the entire period until the closing of the theatres. Just how encyclopaedic was Collier supposed to have been? What an invention?

 

Gerald mentions the 1604-1611 aspects of the revels accounts and backs it up with other detractors (Dyce, Ingleby, Halliwell-Phillipps, Stopes, and others). But do they deny those bits only or the entire accounts?

 

Reading through the introduction of the link above Collier is noted as not having seen or over-looked several accounts. How did he manage this if he wrote them?

 

I found this info on Tannenbaum’s collected works:

http://www.lib.unc.edu/mss/inv/t/Tannenbaum,Samuel_Aaron.html#d1e267

 

and an extra 2 Shakespeare related works which are available to view through the ever brilliant archive.org

 

The first is on Sir Thomas More and the now lost art of bibliotics:

 

“Bibliotics” may be defined as the science which studies the characteristics of a document for the purpose of determining its genuineness or spuriousness and of establishing the identity of the person who wrote it. The best books dealing with this subject are Mr. Albert S. Osborn’s Questioned Documents (Rochester, 1910), The Problem of Proof (N. Y., 1922), and Dr. Persifor Frazer’s Bibliotics, or the Study of Documents (Phila., 1894).

 

and the other is a defence of Shakespeare’s coat of arms grant.

 

Both can be found here:

http://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Tannenbaum%2C+Samuel+Aaron%2C+1874%3F-1948%22

 

Curiously yours,

William Sutton

 
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.