The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0065 Thursday, 14 February 2013
[1] From: William Sutton <
Date: February 14, 2013 6:35:41 AM EST
Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: Manningham and Revels
[2] From: Stanley Wells <
Date: February 14, 2013 12:01:57 PM EST
Subject: RE: SHAKSPER: Manningham and Revels
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: William Sutton <
Date: February 14, 2013 6:35:41 AM EST
Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: Manningham and Revels
Hi All,
Many thanks to Tom Reedy for the link to the revels book. And Duncan Salkeld’s defence of the Manningham anecdote.
I for one didn’t know this ‘old’ stuff, nor that there was controversy about Manningham’s anecdote. The more I research about the early modern era (especially Shakespeare’s part of in around it) the less I understand about post-modern approaches to attribution and biography.
The orthodox scholars backing Shakespeare of Stratford as the writer of these plays and poems are actually an unorthodox bunch. The discrepancies between biographies and dating of plays is what makes this field so much fun if we hold the historical record to be the same for Shakespeare as his contemporaries and do not wander from this path of dalliance into authorship controversy.
There’s no denying forgeries have happened but indeed with modern technology we can CSI that stuff. Accept the King’s re-appearance, or the portraits veracity as you will. Does it provide conclusive proof? I will not give the lie direct.
Scholars will necessarily court controversy and support new-fangled means to interpret the dead words on the page. The more steeped in ink they be, the harder it seems they can wade back to a time of innocence and ignorance. I should like to say what some think is common knowledge, isn’t.
Personally I believe in the power of Shakespeare in his ability to reach individuals as he does with the Behind Bars Project. That said I also appreciate the efforts of scholars to explicate the past together with our present understanding of those artifacts we have.
I’m not trying to offend anyone with my statements so much as make a plea against a dismissive attitude of certainty in a field where, let’s face it, there isn’t any.
There is, however, much virtue in your “if”.
Yours,
William S.-)
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stanley Wells <
Date: February 14, 2013 12:01:57 PM EST
Subject: RE: SHAKSPER: Manningham and Revels
A version of the Manningham/Burbage anecdote had appeared in print in Thomas Wilkes’s A General View of the Stage (1759), long before Collier’s day. (I suppose you might suggest he plagiarized as well as forged but that seems a bit unnecessary.)
Stanley Wells
Professor Stanley Wells, C B E
Honorary President
The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust
Henley St.
Stratford-upon-Avon
Coming in April from C. U. P.: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt, edited by Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells
[Editor’s Note: I am particularly looking forward to Shakespeare Beyond Doubt since I have a modest contribution to the collection. –Hardy]