Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Current Postings ::
Manningham and Revels

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0065  Thursday, 14 February 2013

 

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

     Date:         February 14, 2013 6:35:41 AM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Manningham and Revels 

 

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

     Date:         February 14, 2013 12:01:57 PM EST

     Subject:     RE: SHAKSPER: Manningham and Revels 

 

 

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

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

Date:         February 14, 2013 6:35:41 AM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Manningham and Revels

 

Hi All,

 

Many thanks to Tom Reedy for the link to the revels book. And Duncan Salkeld’s defence of the Manningham anecdote.

 

I for one didn’t know this ‘old’ stuff, nor that there was controversy about Manningham’s anecdote. The more I research about the early modern era (especially Shakespeare’s part of in around it) the less I understand about post-modern approaches to attribution and biography.

 

The orthodox scholars backing Shakespeare of Stratford as the writer of these plays and poems are actually an unorthodox bunch. The discrepancies between biographies and dating of plays is what makes this field so much fun if we hold the historical record to be the same for Shakespeare as his contemporaries and do not wander from this path of dalliance into authorship controversy. 

 

There’s no denying forgeries have happened but indeed with modern technology we can CSI that stuff. Accept the King’s re-appearance, or the portraits veracity as you will. Does it provide conclusive proof? I will not give the lie direct.

 

Scholars will necessarily court controversy and support new-fangled means to interpret the dead words on the page. The more steeped in ink they be, the harder it seems they can wade back to a time of innocence and ignorance. I should like to say what some think is common knowledge, isn’t.

 

Personally I believe in the power of Shakespeare in his ability to reach individuals as he does with the Behind Bars Project. That said I also appreciate the efforts of scholars to explicate the past together with our present understanding of those artifacts we have.

 

I’m not trying to offend anyone with my statements so much as make a plea against a dismissive attitude of certainty in a field where, let’s face it, there isn’t any. 

 

There is, however, much virtue in your “if”.

 

Yours,

William S.-) 

 

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

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

Date:         February 14, 2013 12:01:57 PM EST

Subject:     RE: SHAKSPER: Manningham and Revels

 

A version of the Manningham/Burbage anecdote had appeared in print in Thomas Wilkes’s A General View of the Stage (1759), long before Collier’s day. (I suppose you might suggest he plagiarized as well as forged but that seems a bit unnecessary.)

 

Stanley Wells

 

Professor Stanley Wells, C B E

Honorary President

The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust

Henley St.

Stratford-upon-Avon

 

Coming in April from C. U. P.: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt, edited by Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells

 

[Editor’s Note: I am particularly looking forward to Shakespeare Beyond Doubt since I have a modest contribution to the collection. –Hardy]

 
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.