Thomas of Woodstock

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0253  Friday, 30 September 2011

[1] From:         Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         September 29, 2011 5:37:51 PM EDT

     Subject:      Woodstock 

 

[2] From:         Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         September 30, 2011 3:02:45 PM EDT

     Subject:      Re: Thomas of Woodstock 

 

 

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

From:         Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         September 29, 2011 5:37:51 PM EDT

Subject:      Woodstock

 

Gerald E. Downs writes of Thomas of Woodstock:

 

> I guess rather that the play is not the result

> of unbroken transcription; that authorship claims

> are premature, if not impossible; and that the real

> value will be in the study of its transmission.

> Though a connection with Shakespeare is hypothetically

> possible, the worth of the manuscript is not to be

> found in stylometrics but in it's helping to show

> how theater was done.

 

Very true. The manuscript of this play was central to a critique of New Bibliography presented by William B. Long in the 1980s that has proved highly influential. According to Long, New Bibliographers were wildly mistaken about how theatre was done. However, Long overstated his case and made some significant errors regarding this play, and those who wish to pursue this point might want to read my article "Precision, consistency, and completeness in early-modern playbook manuscripts: The evidence from Thomas of Woodstock and John a Kent and John a Cumber" that will appear shortly in the journal The Library. I'd be happy to send anyone who asks for it a pre-publication copy of the article.

 

Gabriel Egan

 

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

From:         Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         September 30, 2011 3:02:45 PM EDT

Subject:      Re: Thomas of Woodstock

 

Ward Elliott (WE) writes: 

 

>years ago we offered a thousand-pound bet that no one 

>can come up with an untested non-Shakespeare play that 

>will pass as a Shakespeare “could-be” by our computer 

>tests.  The offer still stands (our brief, 3, our 2004, 363-65). 

>No one has ever taken us up on it.

 

JE: I'm considering accepting Ward Elliott's bet (not Michael Egan's counter-bet). I only ask that WE provide an objective precise standard for deciding the outcome. Unless I missed it, WE has provided no such distinct criterion, despite his bemoaning the subjective standardless critique of others. For example, using WE's 29-play Shakespeare baseline with its earlier set of 48 tests, would I win the bet if the previously untested play I submitted showed a maximum of three rejections, or of four rejections, or some other as yet unspecified standard? Please specify.

 

Regards,

Joe Egert

 

Antony and Cleopatra Passage?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0252  Friday, 30 September 2011

[1] From:         Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         September 29, 2011 2:21:39 PM EDT

     Subject:      Re: Ant. Passage 

 

[2] From:         Chris Kendall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         September 29, 2011 8:24:18 PM EDT

     Subject:      Antony & Cleo 

 

[3] From:         Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         Friday, September 30, 11

     Subject:      Re: Ant. Passage 

 

 

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

From:         Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         September 29, 2011 2:21:39 PM EDT

Subject:      Re: Ant. Passage

 

Jack Kamen writes,

 

>I am confused by the final words of this Antony 

>and Cleopatra (2.2.200) passage.

>

> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . on each side her

> Stood pretty-dimpled boys, like smiling Cupids,

> With divers-coloured fans, whose wind did seem

> To glow the delicate cheeks which they did cool,

> And what they undid did. (2.2.200)

>

>Clarification would be much appreciated.

 

Could it be that the wind of the fans both cool her cheeks and also cause them to "glow" or blush, thus undoing the cooling: what they undid (heat on her cheeks) did (causing them again to blush)?

 

Mari Bonomi

 

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

From:         Chris Kendall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         September 29, 2011 8:24:18 PM EDT

Subject:      Antony & Cleo

 

The fans undid (cooled) the heat of her cheeks, but the bright colors of the fans, reflected on those cheeks, made them appear to glow, so that the fanning seemed to make the cheeks warm.

 

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

From:         Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         Friday, September 30, 2011

Subject:      Re: Ant. Passage 

 

Chris Kendall’s reading above is similar to Staunton’s reading from the 1907 Variorum: “We should prefer, 'what they undy'd, dy'd,' that is, while diminishing the colour of Cleopatra's cheeks, by cooling them, they reflected a new glow from the warmth of their own tints.”

 

I, however, find Malone’s reading from the same edition to be less literal and thereby more metaphorically packed with possible meanings: “The wind of the fans seemed to give a new colour to Cleopatra's cheeks, which they were employed to cool; and 'what they undid,' i.e., that warmth which they were intended to diminish or allay, they did, i.e., they seemed to produce.” 

 

Heat is often associated with sexuality, lust, and lechery as evident in these two passages from Othello with the first speaker being Iago, and the second Othello):

 

Were they as prime as Goates, as hot as Monkeyes,

As salt as Wolues in pride, and Fooles as grosse

As Ignorance, made drunke. (F1, TLN 2051-2053)

 

This argues fruitfulnesse, and liberall heart:

Hot, hot, and moyst. This hand of yours requires

A sequester from Liberty: Fasting, and Prayer,

Much Castigation, Exercise deuout,

For heere's a yong, and sweating Diuell here

That commonly rebels: 'Tis a good hand,

A franke one. (F1, TLN 2181-2187)

 

In the first passage Iago lists a number of animals associated with lechery, the monkeys being “hot.”

 

In the second passage Othello describes Desdemona’s hand as “Hot, hot, and moist” and identifies her as a “sweating Diuell.” Thus being "hot" can mean both hot from the sun and hot from lust.

 

While I do not deny the readings above, two selections from Venus and Adonis as derived from my notes to the Internet Shakespeare Editions of the poem may be helpful in teasing out some of the implied meanings of “what they undid did.” 

 

And yet not cloy thy lips with loathed satiety,

But rather famish them amid their plenty, (19-20)

 

In lines 19-20, Venus ironically argues that overindulgence will "famish" rather than "cloy", provoke the desire rather than satiate it, which we can compare to Enobarbus's description of Cleopatra: "Other women cloy / The appetites they feed, but she makes hungry / Where most she satisfies" (2.2.235-237).

 

Thus one interpretation of “what they undid did” might be to that the wind from the fans designed to “cool” Cleopatra, the embodiment of sexual energy, kindled her lustfulness even more, an ironic reversal. 

 

[See annotation at http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/Texts/Ven/M/stanza/4#tln-19]

 

In lines 35-36, Venus is hot as a "glowing fire", causing Adonis to become "red for shame, but frosty in desire." Then in lines 49-52, “Venus’s tears and sighs are intended to cool Adonis down from his being overheated by the sun so that she will again be able to attempt to enflame him with desire for her:

 

He burns with bashful shame; she with her tears

Doth quench the maiden burning of his cheeks.

Then with her windy sighs and golden hairs

To fan and blow them dry again she seeks. (49-52)

 

[See annotation at http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/Texts/Ven/M/stanza/9#tln-50]

 

It seems to me that “what they undid did” can be read that the wind from the fans cooled the lustful Cleopatra, hot from the sun, and in doing so enabled her to be hot with desire again.

Hamlet in the Original Pronunciation

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0251  Friday, 30 September 2011

From:         Peter Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         September 29, 2011 4:30:05 PM EDT

Subject:      RE: OP Hamlet

 

I hate to sound as if I’m nit-picking but . . .

 

How on earth can the event at UNV-Reno be “The World Premiere of…Hamlet  in the Original Pronunciation”? Didn’t that happen over 400 years ago? Or is this original pronunciation to be different from that original pronunciation? (In which case this can’t be “the original pronunciation”).

 

Peter

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0244  Thursday, 29 September 2011

 

From:         Thomas M Lahey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         September 23, 2011 12:01:28 PM EDT

Subject:      Hamlet in the Original Pronunciation, Univ of NV, Reno

 

Nevada Repertory Company announces

 

The World Premiere of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet in the Original Pronunciation

 

Nov. 1, 2 and 3 (Preview Performances), 7:30 p.m.

 

Nov. 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, 7:30 p.m.

 

Nov. 6, 13 and 20, 1:30 p.m.

 

Redfield Studio Theatre

 

The theatre world will be watching — and listening — in awe when the University's world premiere of Hamlet in the Original Pronunciation (OP) hits the stage this fall. Amazingly, the last time Hamlet  was presented in its original dialect was literally centuries ago. In fact, only four OP productions of anything Shakespearean have been performed in modern times: two recently at The Globe Theatre in London, one at the University of Kansas, and one at Cambridge in the 1950s. And modern audiences have been delighted by how understandable the early language is, including the discovery of now-rhyming lines once lost to the ages (love/prove, eyes/qualities, etc.). In the University's remarkable international collaboration, a diverse group of world-class artists, directors, and scholars will come together to produce this world-class event: the great English linguist and The Globe's own consultant David Crystal, author of "Pronouncing Shakespeare"; British superstar actor and scholar Ben Crystal, who will play Hamlet; the University's award-winning Shakespearean scholar, this production's dramaturge, and co-editor of "The Royal Shakespeare Company's Complete Works of William Shakespeare," professor Eric Rasmussen; and the University's own renowned Nevada Repertory Company under the visionary leadership of director and department chair, Rob Gander. A once-in-a-lifetime event indeed — no matter how you say it! 

 

Preview Performances: Adult $10, ASUN $5 (limited quantity available)

 

All Other Shows: Adult $15, Senior $12, Local Student w/ID $10, UNR Student $5 (limited quantity available) 

 

Virtual monkeys recreate Shakespeare?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0250  Friday, 30 September 2011

[1] From:         Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         September 29, 2011 5:20:30 PM EDT

     Subject:      Re: Virtual monkeys 

 

[2] From:         Bud Thompson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         September 30, 2011 4:08:51 AM EDT

     Subject:      Re: Virtual monkeys 

 

 

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

From:         Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         September 29, 2011 5:20:30 PM EDT

Subject:      Re: Virtual monkeys

 

Al Magary reports that Stephen Shankland stated:

 

"I was pleasantly surprised today to hear of Jesse Anderson's success in getting randomly typing virtual monkeys to recreate a Shakespeare poem. Alas and alack, though, I found this tale of computational prowess conquering statistical improbability too good to be true. Anderson said his virtual monkeys successfully recreated A Lover's Complaint, an astounding accomplishment given that it has, by my count, 13,940 characters in 2,587 words."

 

I think if more closely looked into it will be found that this poem was in fact randomly generated by John Rhesus of Hereford...

 

Bill Lloyd

 

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

From:         Bud Thompson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         September 30, 2011 4:08:51 AM EDT

Subject:      Re: Virtual monkeys

 

Thanks to Al Magary for posting the news about Jesse Anderson's virtual monkey. Finally, the Oxfordians have some confirmation of their claims.

 

Louis W. Thompson

 

Queen Undaunted

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0249  Friday, 30 September 2011

From:         Thomas Pendleton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         September 29, 2011 8:25:35 PM EDT

Subject:      RE: SHAKSPER: Queen Undaunted 

 

Jeanette Webber's claim that Margaret of Anjou is "the only person to appear in four of [Shakespeare's] plays"--meaning the three Henry VI plays and Richard III--neglects the presence of her husband, who appears in the three plays that bear his name, and returns, first as a corpse and then as a ghost in Richard III. Since he has a few lines in his latter manifestation, he must be allowed the same status as character that we accord King Hamlet.

 

Tom Pendleton

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.