May
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0880 Thursday, 5 May 2005 [1] From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 08:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 16.0864 Dating Hamlet [2] From: Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 15:10:58 -0600 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0864 Dating Hamlet [3] From: Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 18:58:38 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0864 Dating Hamlet [4] From: David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 04 May 2005 21:23:24 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0864 Dating Hamlet [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 08:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 16.0864 Dating Hamlet Comment: Re: SHK 16.0864 Dating Hamlet Edmund Taft writes, "In fact, Hamlet takes a trip back in time from the Renaissance to the middle ages; he regresses from an enlightened Renaissance courtier to an image of his father, by the end of the play. In short, Egert's got it basically right, and Bill Arnold needs to listen to what Joe has written." Gadzooks! What play these gentlemen do on words! The play that Joe and Edmund wish me to listen to is one in their own minds, and not the play Will Shakespeare wrote. The play I refer to is *Hamlet* and the characters they refer to aren't even in the play, nor do they appear on stage. They are referenced by words. Frankly, gentlemen, the Christian, English audience of 1600 did not care a damn about all that historical subtext. The audience did not have the luxury of 400 years of scholarly research. You cannot be serious! Let us get to reality, here. Act One opens with a spirit of a described, departed king who just happens to be the father of the protagonist of the drama. The protagonist is told the Truth: that the current resident of the throne usurped it by premeditated murder. That crime is in willful violation of one of the Judaic-Christian ten commandments. Not only that, the perpetrator, the evil Claudius, who is center stage as antagonist, has coveted his brother's wife!! Twice: twice this S-O-B bit the apple! Not a member of the Christian, English audience of 1600 gave two hoots about stuff that occurred in Denmark prior to the play opening in Act One. What they, groundlings and all, were confronted with was *Real Drama* between good Prince Hamlet and evil King Claudius. Draw your conclusions from this Premise which Will Shakespeare set before us! Do not force-feed me some crap from out of history books which the audience was not privy to. Do you think Queen Elizabeth viewing this play said to her retinue: who was this Fortinbras chap? Hell, no. She, like the Globe groundings, were thinking one thing only: who was this Usurper to the Throne? How dare him *POISON* the king? Thus, there was only one conclusion to this Will Shakespeare drama: *WHEN* and *HOW* and *WHERE* would Good triumph over Evil? The Christian, English audience of 1600 wanted the evil King Claudius to be slaughtered in front of their eyes and removed from the throne, he usurped. Period. Bill Arnold http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 15:10:58 -0600 Subject: 16.0864 Dating Hamlet Comment: RE: SHK 16.0864 Dating Hamlet Don Bloom quotes Horatio in defense of old Hamlet, and indeed Horatio indicates that "Valiant" old Hamlet killed old Fortinbras in a fair and lawful fight. Still, I think the play is ambivalent about old Hamlet. Besides repeated suggestions that his ghost might come from hell, there is his "start[ing] like a guilty thing" (Horatio's words in the same scene [1.1.148]) when the cock crows. And I think the play (and therefore Shakespeare if not Shakespeare's Horatio) is ambivalent about old Hamlet's killing of old Fortinbras too. This killing is the first mentioned of many events that contribute to a pervasive atmosphere of violence and rivalry. Horatio's words include one especially slippery phrase: "Thereto prick'd on by a most emulate Pride." (See the full passage below.) In context, either the Danish or the Norwegian monarch could be the one "prick'd on," and the "most emulate Pride" could likewise belong to either of them. (In other words, there are at least four ways to understand the line-Fortinbras's pride has "prick'd" him on to dare Hamlet to combat; or Fortinbras's pride has "prick'd" Hamlet on to accept the dare; or Hamlet's pride has "prick'd" Fortinbras on to make the dare; or Hamlet's pride has "prick'd" him on to accept it.) Since "emulate" means, roughly, "desiring to equal or surpass another," in the end it maybe doesn't matter whose pride the line refers to: whoever started the rivalry, both are now imitatively engaged in it. Though I doubt we are to imagine the ambiguity in Horatio's phrasing as having been intentional on his part, the uncertainty about whose pride is pricking on whom helps set the unsettled ethical and emotional tone of the play. And, as I've noted, this reference to an event of rivalrous violence-an event mentioned again near the end of the play, in the gravedigging scene-starts a pattern that runs through the play. I don't know that I would call old Hamlet's killing of old Fortinbras the "primal crime" of the play. There are other candidates for that, including Cain's killing of Abel. Almost all of the violent acts shown or mentioned in the play are expressions of rivalry or revenge (another form of imitative violence). Some are brother against brother (Cain vs. Abel; Claudius vs. old Hamlet; young Hamlet vs. Laertes, whom he calls a "brother"; and old Hamlet vs. old Fortinbras, who could, by professional courtesy, have called each other "brother monarchs"); some are nephew against uncle (Hamlet's killing of Claudius; and on one reading, Lucianus's killing of the Player King); some are attempts to revenge the death of a father (Pyrrhus's slaughter of old Priam; Laertes's killing of Hamlet; Hamlet's killing of Claudius; and Fortinbras's finally successful vendetta against the kingdom of Denmark); and a couple are random, mistaken, or deflected from the intended objects (Fortinbras's attack on Poland; Hamlet's killing of Polonius). Perhaps rather than speaking of a "primal crime," we might speak of a primal tendency to enmity and violence, something embedded in human nature, something so old its origin has been forgotten (like the "ancient grudge" in Romeo and Juliet). Needless to say, I don't view the play as presenting the rivalry of old Hamlet and any of his enemies as simply a case of good versus evil. Bruce Young P.S.: Horatio's lines: Our last King, 98: Whose Image euen but now appear'd to vs, 99: Was (as you know) by Fortinbras of Norway, 100: (Thereto prick'd on by a most emulate Pride) 101: Dar'd to the Combate. In which, our Valiant Hamlet, 102: (For so this side of our knowne world esteem'd him) 103: Did slay this Fortinbras: who by a Seal'd Compact, 104: Well ratified by Law, and Heraldrie, 105: Did forfeite (with his life) all those his Lands 106: Which he stood seiz'd on, to the Conqueror: 107: Against the which, a Moity competent 108: Was gaged by our King: which had return'd 109: To the Inheritance of Fortinbras, 110: Had he bin Vanquisher, as by the same Cou'nant 111: And carriage of the Article designe, 112: His fell to Hamlet. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 18:58:38 -0400 Subject: 16.0864 Dating Hamlet Comment: Re: SHK 16.0864 Dating Hamlet >"I refer Bill Arnold to SHK 16.0702 which encapsulates my reading of the >play. To reiterate, the primal crime in this drama is the slaughter of >Old Fortinbras by Old Hamlet." But, according to Don Bloom, >A previous posting (by one Horatio) flatly contradicts this > >Our last King, >98: Whose Image euen but now appear'd to vs, >99: Was (as you know) by Fortinbras of Norway, >100: (Thereto prick'd on by a most emulate Pride) >101: Dar'd to the Combate. In which, our Valiant Hamlet, >102: (For so this side of our knowne world esteem'd him) >103: Did slay this Fortinbras: who by a Seal'd Compact, >104: Well ratified by Law, and Heraldrie, >105: Did forfeite (with his life) all those his Lands >106: Which he stood seiz'd on, to the Conqueror: >107: Against the which, a Moity competent >108: Was gaged by our King: which had return'd >109: To the Inheritance of Fortinbras, >110: Had he bin Vanquisher, as by the same Cou'nant >111: And carriage of the Article designe, >112: His fell to Hamlet. > >Now, this Horatio chap might be wrong-that it was not a fair fight, that >Old Hamlet cheated, that there hadn't been any betting of land on the >outcome, that this was all a bit of propaganda cooked up Hamlet's spin >doctors to cover up his crime-but I'm inclined to take his word. He was >there, after all. And nobody seems to dispute it, even Young Fortinbras. Exactly. And why muddle a sizzling psychological drama about an individual struggling with his duty as a son (as epicenter of a search for the meaning of Existence) into some ancient, hardly-touched-upon version of what the whiteman did to the Injuns? --Bob G. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 04 May 2005 21:23:24 -0400 Subject: 16.0864 Dating Hamlet Comment: Re: SHK 16.0864 Dating Hamlet Don Bloom adds an aroma of fact to the discussion of what happened to Fortinbras the Elder. As Don shows, Fortinbras was vanquished by the elder Hamlet in hand to hand combat. What we see as the unfolding of the play is then a cycle of battles: Fortinbras had vanquished someone earlier in coming into possession of his land and then he in turn was vanquished by Hamlet, the situation and the opening of the play. The play ends with the lands restored to the house of Fortinbras. It would seem seem that this cycle is in accord with the words of Ecclesiastes: ECC 1:3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? ECC 1:4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. ECC 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Joe Egert asserts that the play illustrates that vengeance is against "Divine law." But in fact, the Bible recognized the role of vengeance in ancient days as a force to be reckoned with and sought to curb it in Israel by establishing cities of refuge in which it would be unlawful for the "redeemer of blood," the avenger, to kill a fleeing mankiller that had killed accidentally. The guilty deliberate mankiller, on the other hand, would not be so protected and spared. Concerning young Hamlet, finding that his uncle murdered his father and as one who was robbed of his inheritance by his murdering uncle, Hamlet would have been the lawful avenger of his father and the one who had the right to bring his uncle to justice. Hamlet had proved his case through the play Hamlet had staged before the court of Denmark, bringing Claudius's guilt to light through his reaction witnessed by everyone. The problem in the play was not that Hamlet had not the right to kill Claudius, but that he failed to act because he found Claudius at prayer. Hamlet thought (wrongly) that Claudius had prayed for forgiveness and would have escaped in the after life the dire punishment he should have received, that is, escaped the kind of awful punishment that the senior Hamlet had spoken of to Hamlet, having been unprepared for death. In this blunder by Hamlet, born of his overrighteousness, his fatal flaw, Hamlet extends the life of the wicked Claudius and shortens his own life, the life of a good man. In this, the play enacts numerous lines of Ecclesiastes. And at the end with the "unimproved" Fortinbras walking in unopposed to take the kingdom of Denmark, the rueful observation of Ecclesiastes is enacted: ECC 2:18 Yea, I hated all my labour which I had taken under the sun: because I should leave it unto the man that shall be after me. ECC 2:19 And who knoweth whether he shall be a wise man or a fool? yet shall he have rule over all my labour wherein I have laboured, and wherein I have shewed myself wise under the sun. This is also vanity. It is when it is recognized that the play, Hamlet, is Shakespeare's dramatization of Ecclesiastes that the true meaning of Shakespeare's play emerges as it presents the poet's interpretation of the meaning of this book of the Bible. Hence, the time period of the play as a parable is meant to be set somewhere in time, all time. That is why the play partakes of elements of many times. In Shakespeare's interpretation, justice does indeed triumph as everyone can be seen to have gotten what his/her deeds have sown as every secret thing is brought into judgment and the queen, left to heaven. (ECC 12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.) David Basch _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.0879 Thursday, 5 May 2005 [1] From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 17:35:16 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0869 Failed Application [2] From: Elliott Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 17:55:35 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0869 Failed Application [3] From: Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 05 May 2005 05:08:07 +0300 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application [4] From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 20:17:03 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 16.0869 Failed Application [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 17:35:16 +0100 Subject: 16.0869 Failed Application Comment: Re: SHK 16.0869 Failed Application Peter Bridgman wrote: >Since most contemporaries dated parish reforms from 1547-48, John Briggs >is right in suggesting that the Reformation hadn't quite started by the >end of Henry's reign. In actual religious terms, it didn't start until Edward VI's reign. >Leo, for his part, gave Henry the title 'Defender of the Faith' (and >despite what it says on our coins, this was not an inheritable title) I suggest that you take this up with Philip II of Spain, who always considered that he had inherited the title when he became King of England. Don Bloom wrote: >Is that the Henry who broke with the papacy, declared himself head of >the church, and closed the monasteries? That's the one. He always considered himself (and was and is considered by others) to be a Catholic - not a particularly Roman one, of course. He was opposed to Protestantism, but was prepared to overlook that in anyone who would aid his divorce. There was a Catholic reaction in his last years. His daughter Mary insisted on restoring the religious ceremonies to those of the last year of his reign - whatever they might have been. John Briggs [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elliott Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 17:55:35 -0400 Subject: 16.0869 Failed Application Comment: Re: SHK 16.0869 Failed Application I must say that, as a Shakespeare fanatic, I would find the "bet" of more interest if it was for a Thousand Pounds rather than Ten Thousand Dollars! Best, Elliott H. Stone [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 05 May 2005 05:08:07 +0300 Subject: 16.0859 Failed Application Comment: Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application Dear forum, If my yesterday's post is included I must temper it with the information that Joseph Egert imparted and his explication. I judged the present words of Bill Arnold and not the past ones that I had not read. Florence Amit [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 20:17:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 16.0869 Failed Application Comment: Re: SHK 16.0869 Failed Application Joseph Egert writes, "Our resident Biblical scholar Bill Arnold concedes 'Christians are of a Judaic-Christian culture.' Indeed, you have not read my book, Joseph. As I have noted in my posts related to my thoughts on the Bible, I cannot be held accountable forwhat I have not written to this message board. But I have suggested my book is available: http://www.anoldbooklook.com Then Joseph Egert writes, "He was not always so generous. In 2003 (SHK 14.2128), he wrote: 'And what [Jesus] added was the eleventh commandment, the tenet of Christianity: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Now, this was the newly created commandment of Will S's "Saviour." And this commandment is the backbone of the New Testament and replaced the eye-for-an-eye doctrine of the Old Testament." Well, Joseph, what makes you think I was not generous? I was merely citing my interpretation of the New Testament. Jesus himself did note He was descended from the line of David. He was knowledgeable in Old Testament law and stories. In answer to questions from His disciples about which commandment was the greatest He gave His answer, which is found in several places in the NT, but I will cite two, which appear in my book, from the Shakespearean-Age KJV, Matthew, C 22, Vs. 35-38: 35 Then one of them *which was* a lawyer, asked *him a question,* tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which *is* the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." 38 "This is the first and great commandment." Then to, Mark, C 12, V 31: 31 "And the second *is* like, *namely,* this, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' There is none other commandment greater than these." Now, Joseph, I would remind you that I am quoting the KJV, but I do note my observation. Generally, in the Bible, reference to the *commandments* are interpreted to be the *ten commandments* and they are not to be found in Leviticus 19. What Christologers refer to as the eleventh commandment is Jesus' quote from Mark, C 12, V 31, and a few others in the NT. Jesus did Himself state He came not to change the law, but to add to it. That He elevated this commandment from His God to such a high standard, second only to His first commandment, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind," was the doing of Jesus and I only refer you to text, and my interpretation therefrom. Indeed, I stated that the NT version was "newly created" as it was, by Jesus. After all, he was a Jew, a descendant of King David, according to text. I do not find that Saul had anything to do with the matter, as the text above proves otherwise. As I state in my book, what others have done in the name of Jesus is their matter. What Jesus said is His. And He said His was the Will of God. Bill Arnold http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.0878 Thursday, 5 May 2005 From: Harvey Roy Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 12:32:40 EDT Subject: Essex and Henry V Can anyone give me a timeline for Essex' return from Ireland, the subsequent conspiracy and his execution, and Henry 5. I'd very much like to sort out, if it possible, the sequence of events. Thanks for your help. Harvey Roy Greenberg MD _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.0877 Thursday, 5 May 2005 [1] From: Kris McDermott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 12:28:38 -0400 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0870 Macbeth Questions [2] From: John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 5 May 2005 14:25:16 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0870 Macbeth Questions [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kris McDermott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 12:28:38 -0400 Subject: 16.0870 Macbeth Questions Comment: RE: SHK 16.0870 Macbeth Questions Sarah Cohen: >I always thought the phrase "swelling act" was a theatrical (or, >possibly, a musical) metaphor, not a priapic one. > >What about "swelling scene" in Henry V? Is that another reference to >tumescence? What exactly does the Chorus wish that monarchs should behold? Sondheim and Styne make the exact same joke in "You Gotta Have a Gimmick" (the comic apotheosis of "Gypsy") as the stripper Tessie Tura punctuates her routine with Shakespearean quotes: "Where the bee sucks, there suck I; In a cowslip bell I *bump!*"; "Oh that this too too solid flesh would melt, thaw, and resolve itself into a *bump!*"; and "Oh for a muse of fire -- a kingdom for a stage, princes to act, and monarchs to behold the swelling *bump!*" Kris McDermott Central Michigan University [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 5 May 2005 14:25:16 +0100 Subject: 16.0870 Macbeth Questions Comment: RE: SHK 16.0870 Macbeth Questions Sarah Cohen is right, not all swelling signifies tumescence. The context is important though, don't you think? Cheers, John Drakakis _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.0876 Thursday, 5 May 2005 [1] From: Stefan Andreas Sture <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 18:01:38 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0863 My Shakespeare Library [2] From: Brad Berens <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 04 May 2005 09:03:56 -0700 Subj: My Shakespeare Library [3] From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 17:36:05 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0863 My Shakespeare Library [4] From: Thomas Pendleton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 19:56:37 -0400 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0863 My Shakespeare Library [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stefan Andreas Sture <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 18:01:38 +0200 Subject: 16.0863 My Shakespeare Library Comment: Re: SHK 16.0863 My Shakespeare Library Just got the Crystals' Shakespeare's Words in the post, seems good after an initial browsing. Picked up two books today, Jan Kott: Szkice o Szekspirze (Shakespeare our contemporary?) in a Norwegian translation, and Julia Briggs: This Stage-play world [revised ed.], any recommendations? Both were cheap, so no loss of money. the Kott book seems to look at our Will as a political writer - could be interesting. Secondly, any Shakespeare books too weird to be missed? Yours, Stefan Andreas Sture [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Berens <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 04 May 2005 09:03:56 -0700 Subject: My Shakespeare Library Hi everybody, Having been out of the full-time Bard biz since I finished my Ph.D. and succumbed to the lure of corporate America, I was intrigued by Stefan Andreas Sture's question: three careers later, what had lasted on my shelves? If I deal editions out of the hand (which means the Norton Folio Facsimile and Allen & Muir's remarkable "Shakespeare's Plays in Quarto" and all those scholarly editions in the garage go bye-bye), then here are the few, the happy few that remain: Stephen Booth's "King Lear, Macbeth, Indetermination and Tragedy" (for the remarkable chapter on doubling) Campbell & Quinn's "The Reader's Encyclopedia of Shakespeare" (a little dated but still more depthful than all the one-stop-shop guides that have followed it) Michael Dobson's "The Making of the National Poet: Shakespeare, Adaptation and Authorship: 1660-1769" (a remarkable book on how Shakespeare became a cultural phenomenon: I can never thank Steven Orgel enough for recommending it) Andy Gurr's "The Shakespearean Stage" and "Playgoing in Shakespeare's London" (the gold standard for generous scholarship) Nungezer's "Dictionary of Actors" (I keep hearing it's been updated, but have yet to see a better version readily available -- can anybody help with this?) Wells & Taylor's "William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion" And here's a follow-up question for the list: what are your top five books that most illuminated how you think about Shakespeare but that DON'T have explicitly to do with Shakespeare or Renaissance drama? My list : Bernard Beckerman's "Dynamics of Drama" Gary Saul Morson and Caryl Emerson's intellectual biography: "Mikhail Bakhtin: Invention of a Prosaics" Gary Saul Morson's "Narrative and Freedom: The Shadows of Time" Richard Rorty's "Contingency, Irony and Solidarity" Dan Sperber and Deidre Wilson's "Relevance: Cognition and Communication" Anybody else want to share? Best, Brad [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 17:36:05 +0100 Subject: 16.0863 My Shakespeare Library Comment: Re: SHK 16.0863 My Shakespeare Library Bruce Richman wrote: >Shakespeare's Lives by Samuel Schoenbaum >Arden Hamlet, edited by Harold Jenkins (1982) Jenkins' Introduction (150 pages) is wonderful, and unlikely ever to be superseded. His annotation (and 150 pages of longer notes) could, in theory, be added to - but in practice that is unlikely. However, his text is a conflated one, and is now hopelessly out of date. Which is why there will be an Arden3 - currently scheduled for February 2006, although I'm not holding my breath. John Briggs [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Pendleton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 19:56:37 -0400 Subject: 16.0863 My Shakespeare Library Comment: RE: SHK 16.0863 My Shakespeare Library Since Al Magary makes so many and such useful contributions to SHAKSPER, I hope I am in small part repaying him by suggesting that both F. E. Halliday's A Shakespeare Companion, 1564-1964, and Campbell and Quinn's Reader's Encyclopedia of Shakespeare are in my experience far superior to Boyce's Shakespeare A to Z. If, as is more than possible, Al has both titles and disagrees about their usefulness, this may be a rare case of Al Magary being wrong. Tom Pendleton _______________________________________________________________ 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.