November
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2690 Thursday, 29 November 2001 From: Eduardo del Rio <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 28 Nov 2001 11:09:35 -0600 Subject: Succession I'm sure there is an obvious answer to this, but could someone please clarify this: As I understand it, the principle of succession is that the throne passes to the eldest surviving male heir. If he dies, then to *his* eldest male heir. But which is in line first, the brother(s) or sons? If the latter, then this is why Richard III needs to eliminate not only Clarence (George) but also the sons of Edward IV. How is it then, that upon Hamlet
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2689 Thursday, 29 November 2001 From: Dennis Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 28 Nov 2001 15:40:39 +0000 Subject: Shakespeare in Asia CALL FOR PAPERS SHAKESPEARE PERFORMANCE IN THE NEW ASIAS A conference in Singapore 28-30 June 2002 A forum for connecting and contextualizing the performance of Shakespeare in East, South, and Southeast Asia. The conference, to take place at the National University of Singapore, aims to address a) the ways in which the reproduction of Shakespeare occurs in Asian performance and b) how Shakespeare
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2688 Wednesday, 28 November 2001 From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 28 Nov 2001 12:59:37 -0000 Subject: Arden3 Henry VI, Part 3 As John D. Cox has discreetly drawn attention (in SHK 12.2655) to the Arden3 edition that he and Eric Rasmussen have edited of Henry VI, Part 3, perhaps I might be permitted to make a few preliminary comments, based on a cursory inspection? One surprise (to me, at least) was that the 176 page introduction has no real discussion of the date of composition, the sequence of the Henry VI plays, and the authorship of the play (the question of collaboration is raised, indeed it seems to be assumed, but no names or entities are suggested). It seems to be assumed that the play was staged in (or is it "by"?) 1592 and at the Rose. There is an illustration of a model of the Rose prior to its alteration in 1592. The lack of discussion of sequence is puzzling: perhaps it was thought that the Arden3 editions of Part 1 by Burns, and Part 2 by Knowles had covered it sufficiently, but I would have thought that the issue would be raised! There is a lingering suspicion that perhaps the editors don't believe in the "inverted" sequence, but have been censored by the General Editors! (An alternative explanation could be that each editor thought that it was the other's responsibility!) There seems to be no discussion of which company the play would have been written for, which is surprising as Pembroke's Men are on the title page of the Octavo "True Tragedy". Incidentally, printing a reduced facsimile of O as an appendix makes it obvious that it really is an octavo, despite some previous reports. I don't think that either Marcus Dahl or myself will be satisfied by the way "date, sequence, authorship" have been handled by this edition. (I know I shouldn't speak for Marcus, but any spectators of our recent spat will agree that we now both have some understanding of the other's position!) I was particularly annoyed that the wearing of roses by the Lancastrians and Yorkists in the opening scene has been interpolated [editorially] into the SDs (from O). While hardly amounting to the Sin of Conflation, this does obscure what I maintain to be a small but crucial piece of evidence for the "inverted" sequence: that the O text derives (in some fashion) from a performance that postdates 1H6, whereas the F text does not (postdate 1H6, that is!). I had been eagerly awaiting this edition: I shall now have to wait and see what Randall Martin says about these issues in his Oxford Shakespeare edition! John Briggs _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu> DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no responsibility for them.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2687 Wednesday, 28 November 2001 From: Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 27 Nov 2001 18:52:59 -0000 Subject: Not Entirely English Based It might be off-topic but I would like to say that I have just spent a week in south Texas and took a trip to New Orleans. Also I had my very first American Thanksgiving dinner with real Americans which was wonderful. Texas is, well, "don't mess with it". I thought of driving up and trying to find Mike Jensen's favourite cafe to give him a big surprise but thought that his heart might not stand the shock. I love America. SAM SMALL _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu> DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no responsibility for them.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2686 Wednesday, 28 November 2001 From: Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 27 Nov 2001 18:44:29 -0000 Subject: 12.2626 Re: MND Tops Survey Comment: Re: SHK 12.2626 Re: MND Tops Survey It is an old screenwriting adage that "if a scene is about what the scene is about you are in deep trouble". Writers of experience know that sub text is sometimes never obvious and that telling an audience clearly what you mean at every turn will bore them out of the theatre in droves. I am sure Shakespeare applied this tenant to the whole of R&J. It is due his genius that educated people mistake the play for a study of adolescence. By placing young lovers centre stage the old Shakespeare fears of civil unrest crowd around them like poisonous clouds. To pull off the trick Shakespeare had to get us to love the couple and perhaps identify with their hot and amorous affair. Civil disorder is always executed by 18 to 35 year old men whilst the older men and women tacitly - and occasionally noisily - approve. Testosterone flushed males like Tybalt and Romeo will always be ready to demonstrate their honour-led swordplay whilst the older generation has the responsibility to regulate that much-maligned hormone. Clearly in R&J they failed miserably. To tell young men not to violently compete will always fail, but to show their destruction of the lovely Romeo and sweet Juliet is more than most can take. But remember, 40 years later - and in complete ignorance of the message of R&J - England tore itself apart in a civil war between two "families". Perhaps Shakespeare failed too. SAM SMALL _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu> DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no responsibility for them.