The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1755 Monday, 17 October 2005
[1] From: Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 14 Oct 2005 13:11:38 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1748 A Shrew
[2] From: Tom Rutter <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 14 Oct 2005 20:30:16 +0100
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1748 A Shrew
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 14 Oct 2005 13:11:38 -0400
Subject: 16.1748 A Shrew
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1748 A Shrew
Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
I "know" because I read it in the program of the Shakes & Co. production
of "Tamer" I saw and reviewed this summer, and because there were
references to paired productions over a number of years in reviews I
read of UK productions and in on line accounts of Fletcher's play and
its production history.
But reviewers and directors (including me, I admit) don't generally cite
primary sources. It wouldn't be the first time we have accepted and
passed along pseudo-information. I eagerly await the True Facts and
their provenance.
G.L. Horton
<http://www.stagepage.info>
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tom Rutter <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 14 Oct 2005 20:30:16 +0100
Subject: 16.1748 A Shrew
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1748 A Shrew
Does anyone have an opinion on the Riverside editor's note to Ind. i.
88? The Lord recalls an earlier performance by one of the players as 'a
farmer's eldest son'; the player replies, 'I think 'twas Soto that your
honor means.' The note runs, 'A character of this name, with a role like
that described by the Lord, appears in Fletcher's "Women Pleased", but
since that play was first acted around 1620, the reference here must
either be a late addition or point to a much earlier play on which
Fletcher's play was based.'
Any takers for a revised Induction?
Tom
_______________________________________________________________
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.