David Bevington’s As You Like It, Broadview Press/Internet Shakespeare Editions Collaboration

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0473  Monday, 26 November 2012

 

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

Date:         Monday, November 26, 2012

Subject:     David Bevington’s As You Like It, Broadview Press/Internet Shakespeare Editions Collaboration

 

I just received my copy of the first publication in the Broadview Press/Internet Shakespeare Editions collaboration: David Bevington’s edition of As You Like It.

 

The edition is available at many sellers, including Amazon.

 

The Broadview Press web site information can be found here: http://www.broadviewpress.com/product.php?productid=1086&cat=50&page=1

 

The following is the publisher’s description:

 

Both a witty satire of literary cliché and a tender meditation on the varieties of love, As You Like It continues to be one of Shakespeare’s most beloved and widely performed comedies. In the introduction to this new edition, David Bevington traces the complex relationships between the characters in the play, and explores the history of its criticism from Samuel Johnson to the twenty-first century.

 

As part of the newly launched Broadview Press / Internet Shakespeare Editions series, this edition features a variety of interleaved materials—from facsimile pages, diagrams, and musical scores to illustrations and extended discussions of myth and folklore—that provide a context for the social and cultural allusions in the play. Appendices offer excerpts from Shakespeare’s key sources and influences, including Thomas Lodge’s Rosalind and Ben Jonson’s Every Man in His Humor.

 

A collaboration between Broadview Press and the Internet Shakespeare Editions project at the University of Victoria, the editions developed for this series have been comprehensively annotated and draw on the authoritative texts newly edited for the ISE. This innovative series allows readers to access extensive and reliable online resources linked to the print edition.

 

As You Like It

A Broadview Internet Shakespeare Edition

Written by: William Shakespeare

Edited by: David Bevington

Publication Date: July 13, 2012

238pp 

Paperback
ISBN: 9781554810529 / 1554810523

CDN & US $12.95

 

The print edition is intended for the college classroom and should be viewed in coordination with The Internet Shakespeare Editions, which can be found here: 

 

The ISE’s site contains a wealth of supplementary materials, including facsimiles and performances: http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Foyer/plays/AYL.html

 

Editor’s introduction

  • As You Like It: Introduction
  • As You Like It: Critical Reception
  • As You Like It: Performance History
  • As You Like It: Textual Introduction
  • As You Like It: Chronology
  • As You Like It: Bibliography

 

Texts of this edition

  • As You Like It: List of Characters
  • As You Like It (Modern)
  • As You Like It (Folio 1, 1623)

 

Supplementary and related materials

  • Everyman In His Humor (Modern), Ben Jonson
  • Galathea (Modern), John Lyly
  • Rosalind: Euphues' Golden Legacy, Thomas Lodge
  • Euphues (A Selection), John Lyly
  • The Tale of Gamelyn, Anonymous
  • Robin Hood and the Beggar, Anonymous
  • The Marriage Service, Thomas Cranmer
  • Myths in As You Like It, David Bevington

 

Statistics about the text 
Explore the character scrolls as used by Shakespeare's actors, find out which actors appear in each scene, and more.

 

Facsimiles

  • First Folio (1623) from State Library of New South Wales
  • First Folio (1623) from Brandeis University Library
  • Second Folio (1632) from State Library of New South Wales
  • Third Folio (1664) from State Library of New South Wales
  • Fourth Folio (1685) from State Library of New South Wales

 

Performances

  • As You Like It (2012, Atlanta Shakespeare Company, USA)
  • Philaster, or Love Lies a-Bleeding (2012, American Shakespeare Center, USA)
  • As You Like It (2011, Shakespeare Festival im Globe Neuss, Germany)
  • As You Like It (2011, Muse of Fire Theatre Company, USA)
  • Ahogy Tetszik Wie Es Euch Gefallt (2010, Shakespeare Festival im Globe Neuss, Germany)
  • As You Like It (2010, American Shakespeare Center, USA)
  • As You Like It (2009, Blue Bridge Repertory Theatre, Canada)
  • As You Like It (2008, St. Lawrence Shakespeare Festival, Canada)
  • As You Like It (2008, The Bell Shakespeare Company, Australia)
  • As You Like It (2008, Oxford Triptych Theatre, UK)
  • As You Like It (2007, Oregon Shakespeare Festival, USA)
  • As You Like It (2007, British Shakespeare Company, International)
  • As You Like It (2007, Shakespeare by the Sea - Sydney, Australia)
  • Revelers Showcase (2007, St. Lawrence Shakespeare Festival, Canada)
  • As You Like It (2006, Pennsylvania Shakespeare Festival, USA)
  • As You Like It (2006, Shakespeare Santa Cruz, USA)
  • As You Like It (2006, Kenneth Branagh, International)
  • As You Like It (2006, Colorado Shakespeare Festival, USA)
  • Wie es euch gefällt (2006, Shakespeare Festival im Globe Neuss, Germany)
  • As You Like It (2005, Bard on the Beach, Canada)
  • 116 more performances…

 

Performance materials

  • audio artifacts (5 artifacts)
  • costume design artifacts (1 collection, 1 artifact)
  • flyer artifacts (4 artifacts)
  • graphic artifacts (1 artifact)
  • illustration artifacts (3 artifacts)
  • magazine artifacts (7 collections)
  • newsletter artifacts (2 collections)
  • page artifacts (1 artifact)
  • pamphlet artifacts (10 collections, 7 artifacts)
  • photograph artifacts (17 artifacts)
  • playbill artifacts (2 artifacts)
  • postcard artifacts (3 collections, 1 artifact)
  • poster artifacts (11 artifacts)
  • press clipping artifacts (2 artifacts)
  • press release artifacts (5 collections, 2 artifacts)
  • production notes artifacts (1 collection, 1 artifact)
  • production still artifacts (206 artifacts)
  • program artifacts (32 collections)
  • prompt book artifacts (1 collection)
  • review artifacts (10 collections, 34 artifacts)
  • script artifacts (1 artifact)

 

[Editor’s Note: I am both a member of the Editorial Board and an editor of the Internet Shakespeare Editions. –Hardy M. Cook]

Shakespeare and Japan

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0472  Monday, 26 November 2012

 

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

Date:         November 26, 2012 9:44:33 AM EST

Subject:     Shakespeare and Japan 

 

“Shakespeare and Japan” at De Montfort University (Leicester, England) on Tuesday 26 February, 2013

 

This one-day event offers scholars an opportunity to contribute to the international journal Shakespeare’s special issue on Shakespeare and Japan, edited by Professor Dominic Shellard.

 

Papers are invited on all aspects of Shakespeare and Japan, ranging from performances, film adaptations, and translations to accounts of the plays’ critical reception in Japan.

 

Abstracts (100-200 words) should be sent to:

 

Professor Deborah Cartmell This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

and

 

Professor Gabriel Egan This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

by 6 December 2012

 

Gabriel Egan

Play Length

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0471  Saturday, 24 November 2012

 

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

     Date:         November 23, 2012 4:24:51 PM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Play Length 

 

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

     Date:         November 23, 2012 11:15:19 PM EST

     Subject:     Play Length, A Speculative Excursion 

 

 

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

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

Date:         November 23, 2012 4:24:51 PM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Play Length

 

“Shakespeare wanted his works to be read and not just seen.”

 

Who knows and who cares? 

 

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

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

Date:         November 23, 2012 11:15:19 PM EST

Subject:     Play Length, A Speculative Excursion

 

I want to thank all who have been continuing this discussion. It’s fun, and seems to be getting better and better. Hoorah for civil discourse! That said, now I can go back to gleeful mud-wrestling.

 

My disagreements with various people spring from our quite incompatible formulations of what might have been considered as normal operating procedures in Shakespeare’s theatres. How do we imagine what may have been going on there, and what facts, factoids, or fabrications do we want to weave into our stories? Today’s episode begins with the ways Shakespeare-at-work is conceived by Stephen Orgel, Andrew Gurr, Lukas Erne, and Alfred Hart (each of whom I address in my SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN article) and Dom Saliano and Steve Roth (dancing here in SHAKSPER).

 

They project an image of Shakespeare scribbling away to create scripts as long as he thinks fit, but then the players take the too-long versions and cut them down to fit into two-hour presentations. Now, I’ve worked on cutting scripts. It takes time. Paper, back then, was costly, too. But we’re supposed to imagine that Shakespeare couldn’t control himself when working on those history plays and tragedies that built themselves to over 3000 lines. Okay?

 

Dom Saliano suggests that the playwright’s “shadows (who were fearful of offending groundlings who were challenged by anything more than “dumb shows and noise”) would have presented on stage  . . . far less than what was printed.”   

 

Dom’s “shadows,” the actors, weren’t vague zombies, though. They were the same guys who Shakespeare climbed on stage with every day. Day after day, for decades. Collaborative enterprises don’t really go for years and years if one guy on the team is pulling it in directions that discomfort everyone else.  

 

Further, I have to repeat my earlier observations that the differences between the longer and shorter versions of Shakespeare’s plays cannot be accounted for by cutting to achieve brevity. Want to see abbreviating?  The fascinating Padua Promptbooks which were edited by G Blaskemore Evans and are discussed (and reproduced in part) by Stephen Orgel in his “Acting Scripts/ Performing Texts” in THE AUTHENTIC SHAKESPEARE (2002), show clearly what Early Modern cutting looks like, and it ain’t no-way like what shows up when you hold Q1 against Q2 Romeo and Juliet.  Please look at my yummy essay, “Five Women Eleven Ways” in W Habicht, et al., IMAGES OF SHAKESPEARE (1988), 292-304 to see how those ladies in five different plays change through richly imagined and intricately configured re-writings of character, dialogue, and stage action. If you limit your analysis of the changes to include only line counts, then you are missing the soul of the enterprise.  

 

Steve Roth raises several important aspects of the crucial question of Shakespeare’s attitude towards his literary legacy (outside of but joined at the hip to our discussion of play length). And here we may be on the Extrapolis Express, chugging blithely out onto the Bridge of the Unknown spanning the Gulf of the Unknowable. Erne and others are confident that Shakespeare wrote his too-long scripts as literature to be appreciated by and passed down for discerning readers. Okay. So our Will is a little impractical, and he and the company had to perform extra labor to do that cutting. Sure. So the long versions would still be printed. Right.

 

So then why-oh-why, oh pray tell me why did this luftmensch-impractical author with literary aspirations actually fail to get half of all his plays into print?  

 

It’s not as if he didn’t have experience AND easy contacts with printers. Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece demonstrate that he could generate literature with the best of them out there. This is the same guy who could negotiate with the Heraldry office for a coat of arms, who made big bucks as one of the sharers in the most successful theatrical troupe in London and as one of the owners of the Globe, and who dealt in commodities and real estate back home. (And although details are not altogether clear, he likely had the right to get his plays printed if he so desired.) After he stopped acting, he had three whole years before he died. Not one previously unpublished play appeared to nail down his literary legacy.

 

I don’t want to carry on a debate about whether a printed Shakespearean script is or is not literature. What is “is” but “is”? Actually, as I’ve said in this very forum, the distinction between a script and the experience of a play for an audience member is like that between a musical score and a musical performance of that score and between a recipe and the piping hot rendition of that recipe with its four-and-twenty blackbirds en croute set before the king. I cook, I direct plays, and I coach singers in how to perform their scores. The score ain’t the music, the recipe ain’t the pie, and the literary text (pace Lukas Erne) sure ain’t the play. If you want your students to love Shakespearean scripts as if they were literature, then you really MUST teach them how to cook a pie, how to sing a song, and how (by golly) how to direct a play—or at least how to read imaginatively like a director. “Who is speaking? Who is listening? Who else is on stage, maybe not listening? Who just left?”  

 

So if meant as literary documents, why didn’t the plays get published by that literateur, Wm Shakespeare? Here’s a maybe, a what-if: 

 

When you’re up to your ears in the production of events that are ineluctably ephemeral, the way Shakespeare was for his whole working life, maybe when you stop writing and acting you decide that the bare script is NOT what you want to leave behind. And maybe instead you go home to the country, tend your garden, and savor the memories of the packed-to-the-rafters Globe or the fancy-pants Blackfriars filled with laughter, audiences gasping, actors glowing with the magic of a great performance. And you grin. And say, “Enough.”

 

And then the rest of us give greater thanks to his buddies Heminges and Condell who, without his instructions, nevertheless hand down to us what Will in the pure afterglow of his Dionysian ecstasy had evidently stepped away from.

 

That’s a narrative I think about.

 

Steve Groundless Speculatowitz

Blood Question

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0470  Saturday, 24 November 2012

 

[1] From:        Eric Johnson-DeBaufre <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         November 23, 2012 7:00:54 PM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Blood? 

 

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

     Date:         November 24, 2012 4:13:19 AM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Blood? 

 

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

     Date:         November 24, 2012 9:52:56 AM EST

     Subject:     Blood Query 

 

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

     Date:         November 24, 2012 1:35:30 PM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Blood? 

 

 

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

From:        Eric Johnson-DeBaufre <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         November 23, 2012 7:00:54 PM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Blood?

 

Re: Early Modern Stage Blood

 

Maik Goth addresses this in a recent issue of Comparative Drama (vol. 46 no. 2, Summer 2012, pp. 139-62). Although there is ongoing debate about how bloodshed was staged, surviving evidence suggests a range of practices. Goth notes the manuscript marginalia to George Peele’s The Battle of Alcazar (1594), which calls for the use of “3 vials of blood and a sheep’s gather” (p. 142) while Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy suggests the use of red ink rather than animal blood (p. 142), although the theatrical context (a letter written in blood) makes the latter choice understandable. See also her footnotes 22-24, and 28.

 

I confess to having doubts about how regularly viscous stage blood was used, but these are just suspicions rooted in the accounts of the investments companies made in clothing to costume their players and in my sense that they viewed these as valuable commodities. How willing were they to risk having them damaged by sheep’s blood or vinegar? I look forward to hearing from those on the list who have thought more about this than I have.

 

Eric Johnson-DeBaufre 

 

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

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

Date:         November 24, 2012 4:13:19 AM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Blood? 

 

Michael Saenger writes

 

> I'm wondering what substance was typically used

> to simulate blood in the Elizabethan theater. I have

> heard people suggest that blood of an animal would

> be used, but this would create a pretty nasty mess,

> whereas another substance, such as wine lees, would

> be considerably easier to clean and would work

> essentially just as well.

 

The ‘plot’ for ‘The Battle of Alcazar’ (British Library Additional Manuscript 10449) has the marginal note “3 violls of blood & a sheeps gather” alongside what appears to be violent action. It is not clear (pace Tiffany Stern) what such a plot was used for, but it clearly has some connection to planning or running the performance.

 

Is wine lees easier to remove than blood? Anybody on SHAKSPER ever tried, using only the animal/vegetable fat-plus-ash soaps available then?

 

Gabriel Egan

 

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

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

Date:         November 24, 2012 9:52:56 AM EST

Subject:     Blood Query

 

In response to Michael Saenger’s query about stage blood, the reference to a wine-related composition is from Thomas Preston’s Cambyses (1561?) that calls for “A little bladder of Vinegar pricked.” For information on the procedures used by Shakespeare and his contemporaries the person to consult is Prof. Andrea Stevens, U. of Illinois. For a list of relevant stage directions in professional plays between 1580 and 1642 (none of which help with the composition of the stage blood) see the entry for “bloody, bleeding” in Dessen and Thomson, A Dictionary of Stage Directions in English Drama, 1580-1642. (Cambridge U.P., 1999)

 

Alan Dessen

 

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:         November 24, 2012 1:35:30 PM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Blood? 

 

Blood Question

 

Michael Saenger wonders “what substance was typically used to simulate blood in the Elizabethan theater.”

 

Check out Gurr & Ichikawa’s STAGING IN SHAKESPEARE’S THEATRES (2000) p.61:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=5ClM9i9UoRcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=bladder+blood+%22+%22+intitle:staging+intitle:in+intitle:shakespeare's+intitle:theatres+inauthor:gurr&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sA-xUOICpd_RAZHxgIgL&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=bladder%20blood%20%22%20%22%20intitle%3Astaging%20intitle%3Ain%20intitle%3Ashakespeare's%20intitle%3Atheatres%20inauthor%3Agurr&f=false

 

“Stage blood, usually from a bladder or glass full of pig’s blood, was by no means a rare resource.[ . . . ]”

 

Joe Egert 

Play Length

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0469  Friday, 23 November 2012

 

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

Date:         November 22, 2012 9:54:08 PM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Play Length

 

As Dom Saliani puts it: “Shakespeare wanted his works to be read and not just seen.”

 

This is an important consideration because it means that Shakespeare composed his works knowing that what he wanted to convey would come through in the complete written work. Even if the staged plays were modified and/or shortened, what he intended to convey still survived in the complete written form. There is good reason to believe that Shakespeare was actually composing literature on the basis that this would be the case.

 

Kenneth Chan

http://kenneth-chan.com/qod/

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.