The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2226 Thursday, 16 December 1999.
Date: Wednesday, 15 Dec 1999 11:46:53 EST
Subject: 10.2215 Re: Q1 Hamlet
Comment: Re: SHK 10.2215 Re: Q1 Hamlet
<John Briggs wrote,
<I am a bit perturbed by the "based on": is it the first quarto text or
According to Jonathon Holloway, the director of the Red Shift Theatre
Company's "'Hamlet: First Cut," the production is "using the first
quarto in the Harvester edition, and we are sticking very carefully to
the text. We have made some cuts, but not many, and have not introduced
any padding material from other versions of the text."
The reviews so far have been very positive, or, (I am quoting Holloway
again) "near ecstatic.
The company has a web-site; www.rstc.dircon.co.uk
I hope this helps.
To Nicolas Pullin:
Ah, but you are wrong Mr. Pullin. I saw you as Claudius in "Hamlet, Bad
Quarto, Good Play?" last April at Loyola University in Chicago. The
production was very well done and the comparison scenes were invaluable
to me. A large part of my dissertation on Q1 Hamlet has to do with
recent theatrical productions using the Q1 text, and your production is
described in detail. The time you and your fellow actors (players?) and
Professor Worthen spent in discussion/questions/answer periods was
fascinating, and more helpful to me than I can tell you in this message.
I am hoping that the paper I have spun off of that chapter will soon be
in print with the cast and content of your production highlighted.
Thank you very much for bringing theater and scholarship together.
Something that should be done more often.
Northern Illinois University
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2224 Wednesday, 15 December 1999.
Date: Tuesday, 14 Dec 1999 19:56:44 -0600
Subject: 10.2211 Nicknames as Surnames
Comment: Re: SHK 10.2211 Nicknames as Surnames
>A paper by David Postles (University of Leicester), " 'Oneself as
>Another' and Middle English nickname bynames", Nomina, Vol. 22 (1999),
>pages 117-132, has just been published. Although interesting, this
>paper would be considerably off-topic if the author had not discussed
>(briefly, and in passing) the question of whether the surname
>Shakespeare and its cognates Shakeshaft, Shakelaunce and Wagstaff were
>sexually-marked or -charged nickname bynames or simply indicative of
>persons with violent tempers. Other nickname bynames are unmistakably
>sexually-charged and as such are unsuitable for a moderated list ...
>Professional Honigmann sceptics may be interested to note that a John
>Shakeshaft is to be found in the Lancashire Poll Tax of 1379.
I've often wondered if the name Shagspere on his marriage license wasn't
a deliberate sexual pun. It sounds like the kind of joke an 18-year-old
groom might make in his adolescent pride of seducing an older woman.
However, mid-18th century is the earliest I can date the word "shag"
used as a slang term for sexual intercourse. It's impossible to guess
when this particular use of the word entered the language, but it seems
likely that given the rich sexual vocabulary of Elizabethans it may have
been common long before it appeared in print.