April
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0767 Thursday, 24 April 2003 From: Tom Pendleton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 12:36:53 -0400 Subject: 14.0761 Shakespeare Newsletter 52:4 Comment: RE: SHK 14.0761 Shakespeare Newsletter 52:4 Again thanks to Mike for his posting, and again contactThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. if you'd like a sample copy. Tom Pendleton Co-Editor, The Shakespeare Newsletter _______________________________________________________________ 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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> 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 14.0766 Thursday, 24 April 2003 From: Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 15:10:14 +0000 Subject: Dicky number too Nancy Charlton (22 Apr 2003) "[...] Last year we discussed the significance of the number "three," ....says she. >"I waited ages for a devil and three came along at once." , says I. What did I tell you? [...] says she. Well, this was a glance at the common saying "You wait AGES for bus and then three come at once" but the Wilderness episode context seemed appropriate with the judean connection of the original phrase. (Part of the joke is that my local bus route is number 6. However, I didn't want to attract N. E . More complaints about the export of arcane eastern knowledge to the west.) N.E.Morefares-Hall _______________________________________________________________ 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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> 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 14.0765 Thursday, 24 April 2003 [1] From: Cliff Ronan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 09:59:16 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages [2] From: Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 11:28:02 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages [3] From: Tom Pendleton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 12:31:13 -0400 Subj: RE: SHK 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages [4] From: Friedman Michael <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 15:20:51 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cliff Ronan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 09:59:16 -0500 Subject: 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages Comment: Re: SHK 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages David Evett, There are probably no other character names in a single play unless we count Lord Bardolph and Falstaff's Bardolph in 2 Henry IV. Best regards, Cliff Ronan [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 11:28:02 -0400 Subject: 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages Comment: Re: SHK 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages David Evett asked: >In any case, can >anybody on the list point to another instance in the canon where two >clearly different personages in the same play have the same name? Shooting fish in a barrel, of course...I was in a reading of Comedy of Errors, and somebody asked WHY anybody would be dumb enough to give two sets of twins the same name, That stumped me, so "Shut up," I explained. Dana Shilling [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Pendleton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 12:31:13 -0400 Subject: 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages Comment: RE: SHK 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages Dear David In JC, Flavius is a tribune in 1.1 and in 5.4 one of Brutus's followers--opening SD only; he has no lines. Two other close ones--Balthasar is both the name Portia assumes and the name of one of her servants, and in 2H4 there is both a Bardolph and a Lord Bardolph. Twins probably shouldn't count, but Olivia does at various times call both Viola and Sebastian Cesario. And for a possible counter-example--if Falstaff's page in 2H4 and H5 is the Robin of MWW (and I think he is), he's probably Robin because four other people have Page as a surname. Tom Pendleton [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Friedman Michael <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 15:20:51 -0400 Subject: 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages Comment: Re: SHK 14.0758 Query: One Name, Two Personages I believe I can think of an example of this phenomenon. In *Two Gents*, Julia and Lucetta discuss one of Julia's suitors, the "fair Sir Eglamour." A character by the same name later appears as a trusted friend of Silvia, but there is no indication whether this figure was also Julia's suitor in the beginning of the play. Michael Friedman University of Scranton _______________________________________________________________ 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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> 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 14.0764 Thursday, 24 April 2003 [1] From: Ben Spiller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 15:06:09 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 14.0757 Re: The Public Theater's AS YOU LIKE IT [2] From: Michael Shurgot <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 11:57:10 -0700 Sub: RE: SHK 14.0757 Re: The Public Theater's AS YOU LIKE IT [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Spiller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 15:06:09 +0100 Subject: 14.0757 Re: The Public Theater's AS YOU LIKE IT Comment: Re: SHK 14.0757 Re: The Public Theater's AS YOU LIKE IT I am in contact with the director of the recent Sheffield Crucible "Macbeth", James Phillips, who has sent me the script, edited initially by himself and then altered throughout rehearsals with the cast. Although I didn't manage to catch the production, the script certainly makes for an enlightening read. The witches are reworked as children who play with china dolls, and Banquo's ghost wears a mask similar to the faces of the dolls. The cutting does not seem to be blunt and careless, but carefully executed to produce a new script, which, although critics will inevitably compare to the 1620 Folio, should probably be seen as a text in its own right -- a version, reworking or off-shoot from the play as it was recorded by the compositors of F1. I envy Mr Zull, who must have experienced an extremely intense performance (four actors, minimal design, no interval) of a pared-down version of an already short and thrilling play. Did anyone else see it? [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Shurgot <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 2003 11:57:10 -0700 Subject: 14.0757 Re: The Public Theater's AS YOU LIKE IT Comment: RE: SHK 14.0757 Re: The Public Theater's AS YOU LIKE IT Dear Colleagues: Don Bloom's trouble with very small cast productions of a WS play is understandable, although I do not wish to minimize the abilities of talented actors to engage the imaginations of their spectators in many and enchanting ways. However, as I have mentioned previously on this list serve, excessive and unconvincing doubling/tripling of roles was one of the major problems with the Oregon Shakespeare Festival's Macbeth in 2002. Some of the role switching was silly because the same actor was unable to convince spectators that s/he "embodied" two or three totally different characters: e.g.: Fleance one moment and one of Macbeth's hired thugs the next. We should all try to respect actors' efforts, and be accommodating and imaginative in our responses to a production's choices, but I would agree that at times credibility is strained so much that the production--like a too taut string--snaps. Regards, Michael Shurgot _______________________________________________________________ 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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> 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 14.0763 Wednesday, 23 April 2003 [1] From: John Zuill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 2003 18:32:08 -0300 Subj: Re: SHK 14.0756 The Strachey Letter [2] From: John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 2003 18:54:32 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 14.0756 The Strachey Letter [3] From: Ira Zinman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 2003 23:44:02 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 14.0756 The Strachey Letter [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Zuill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 2003 18:32:08 -0300 Subject: 14.0756 The Strachey Letter Comment: Re: SHK 14.0756 The Strachey Letter >Sir William Somers to Virginia in the summer of 1609 Um, that has to wrong. I am Bermudian and we all grew up knowing it was George Somers. John Zuill [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 2003 18:54:32 -0400 Subject: 14.0756 The Strachey Letter Comment: Re: SHK 14.0756 The Strachey Letter Elliott H. Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > continues his "stealth" Oxfordian rant. >However, those that would claim that Shakespeare was a common plagiarist >have recently received a good thrashing, as well they should, by that >careful scholar Brian Vickers. It is one of the most thoroughly established facts about Shakespeare that he regularly performed acts that would be regarded as plagiarism today. Or is it a further part of your contention that Holinshed's Chronicles, North's edition of Plutarch, "Pandosto", "The Palace of Pleasure" (not to mention the "Decameron"), etc., etc., were, all of them, based on Shakespeare's plays and falsely back-dated as part of the Great Oxfordian Coverup? >Was William Strachey a competent poet or writer capable of the wonderful >descriptions that appear in the letter? Wasn't Strachey a convicted >swindler, a liar, a traitor, a bankrupt and a man who plagiarized from >all the leading explorers in the New World i.e. Raleigh and Smith? >Wasn't he the man that the Stationer's Company forced to return his >profits on his early sight seeing book on France to the original writer? >Was he not the man that reopened the Children's Theater after it was >closed by the Crown and its true owner had fled to the continent? (Is >this the man who wrote the terrible versification of the satire known as >THE ELEGY BY W.S.?) Is this the man we are to believe that Shakespeare >used as a mentor! No-one, of course, has ever said any such thing. What has been claimed is that Shakespeare used William Strachey's "True Reportory of the Wrack, and Redemption of Sir Thomas Gates Knight.", in combination with Sylvester Jourdain's "A Discovery of the Barmudas" and the anonymous "A True Declaration of the Estate of the Colonie in Virginia" as source material for "The Tempest". The close parallels, not only verbal, but also -- and far more importantly -- in the nature and succession of incidents, have been listed by David Joseph Kathman in "Dating 'The Tempest'", at http://www.shakespeareauthorship.com/tempest.html >It seems more than likely that Strachey was the plagiarizer and the >thief. Is it not true that his letter was used by him to BLACKMAIL the >shareholders of The Virginia Company? I suggest that the Strachey letter >be run through a computer program to determine if it truly has his DNA >or that of Shakespeare's? The hard part will be trying to find anything >that is truly Strachey's and not stolen literary property! Yet _all_ the accounts of the wreck of the Sea-Venture are in substantial agreement with each other, and with "The Tempest". >The likely scenario is that Jonson was editing the First Folio Unsupported supposition #1 >and gave >his business partner William Strachey some material to use to help him >stave off his creditors and his pending incarceration in Debtor's >Prison! Unsupported supposition #2 > There is no doubt that the First Folio contains material from > the Jacobean period, added after earlier staging, Unsupported supposition #3 >that may refer to >topical events like the Bermuda shipwreck. There is nothing new about my >view. This was the view of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Mark Twain and Herman >Melville all men who understood a little bit about writing and literary >criticism. ...and nothing to speak of about Jacobean social or literary history. I've already rumbled you. Kindly take your anti-Stratfordian fantasies back to news:humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare, where they belong. They're not wanted here. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ira Zinman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 2003 23:44:02 EDT Subject: 14.0756 The Strachey Letter Comment: Re: SHK 14.0756 The Strachey Letter I am mystified at the emphasis placed on the Tempest being based, at least in part on the ship wreck described by Strachey or any other wrecks for that matter, and there were many. The heart and Soul of the Tempest, it seems, has to do more with relationship of the two brothers and the forgiveness afforded by Prospero, and many other underlying, overt and more esoteric themes. The wreck of Sir Thomas Gates ship and the survival in the Bermudas is one of many tragedies at sea and rescues at sea. What have they to do with the deposed Prospero being set adrift with his young daughter. I understand the dating of the Tempest has become an incessant issue with the authorship debate and who wrote what when. But the survival of the Gates vessel in reality has little to do with the important themes in the Tempest don't you think? It seems a creative mind like Shakespeare's could have manufactured a shipwreck scenario with or without Strachey's story. Regards, Ira _______________________________________________________________ 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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> 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.