June

Young Shakespeare's Young Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 29.0242  Friday, 29 June 2018

 

[1] From:        Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         June 28, 2018 at 6:27:19 PM EDT

     Subj:         Re: SHAKSPER: Young Hamlet 

 

[2] From:        Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         June 29, 2018 at 8:44:13 AM EDT

     Subj:         Re: SHAKSPER: Young Hamlet 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         June 28, 2018 at 6:27:19 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Young Hamlet

 

Pervez Rizvi:

 

we don’t hear that mature verse again in the plays he wrote or co-wrote in the early 1590s

 

I think I'm too poetically obtuse to answer that. There are early 1590s passages that I Iove as much as that one (Richard III!), but I’m at a loss to argue their relative poetic maturity on any grounds that I think would convince others — or really even myself.

 

If an author decides to refresh his memory of his source before he revises a play, the revision might show more traces of the source than the original, might it not?

 

Certainly, true as a general statement. But in this particular case I come back to Jolly’s “disconcerting” findings of what she considers “undoubted evidence”: persistent and pervasive language of youth throughout Belleforest and Q1, much absent from F1/Q2, and explicitly contradicted therein (though I suggest ambiguously in F1). 

 

What can explain this if Q1 (source ms) is later? Did S or someone else go back to Belleforest, notice belatedly that the prince is unequivocally a youth, and that it adds much to the narrative and dramatic tension? So added circa half a dozen youth references, removed the gravedigger’s key Hamlet’s-birth/30-year lines, and edited the 23-year-dead Yorick to twelve?

 

I just can’t imagine what the reason would be, especially if this is 1599–1603ish and they’re (re)writing for a thirty-something Burbage. Yes, deducing reasons and intentions is dicey stuff. But “no imaginable reason” (coupled with plausible reasons for the opposite) strikes me as a decent reason for disbelieving a proposition. (Just as no or negative correlation is strong evidence disproving causation. Karl Popper, falsification, all that rot.)

 

Arlynda Boyer: Thanks so much for the Rosenbaum link. Don’t know how my many searches didn’t turn it up. Though I’m much less interested in the academic dog-fighting and more in appreciating Shakespeare, I generally find Rosenbaum to be engaging reading.

 

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         June 29, 2018 at 8:44:13 AM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Young Hamlet

 

Dear SHAKSPERians

 

Pervez Rizvi writes:

 

> Steve refers us to Taylor and Loughnane's

> chapter in the Authorship Companion. A

> couple of snippets from it are worth noting.

> They accept Bourus' view that Shakespeare

> wrote an early Hamlet and they give its

> date range as 1575-1589. Unless that 1575

> is a typo for 1585, it seems they think that

> Shakespeare might have written a Hamlet play

> when he was eleven years old.

 

Yes, it is a typo (for “1575” read “1585”). Thanks, Pervez; I’ve asked for this to be corrected in the next printing.

 

Gabriel Egan

Co-Editor, New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion

 

 

 

Ariel’s Song

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 29.0241  Friday, 29 June 2018

 

[1] From:        Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         June 28, 2018 at 12:43:27 PM EDT

     Subj:         Re: SHAKSPER: Q_Ariel's Song 

 

[2] From:        Tom Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         June 28, 2018 at 3:29:37 PM EDT

     Subj:         Re: SHAKSPER: Q_Ariel's Song 

 

[3] From:        Jeff Dailey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         June 28, 2018 at 6:52:12 PM EDT

     Subj:         Re: SHAKSPER: Q_Ariel's Song 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         June 28, 2018 at 12:43:27 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Q_Ariel's Song

 

Ariel’s Song

 

Robert Johnson (no, not the blues singer!) probably wrote the original music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhVBuzvf5pQ .

 

Music for this song was also composed by Henry Purcell and Thomas Arne -- both big names in stage music in the 17th and 18th centuries -- and then subsequently by many other people...

 

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Tom Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         June 28, 2018 at 3:29:37 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Q_Ariel's Song

 

Has anyone ever noticed this sung in a production of the Tempest? If so, who wrote the music? I have a vague memory that Frank Bridge or William Walton put it to music but can’t find it.  

 

Yes. See:

 

http://www.lieder.net/lieder/find_titles_and_first_lines.html?pat=Full+Fathom+Five

 

Tom

 

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Jeff Dailey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         June 28, 2018 at 6:52:12 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Q_Ariel's Song

 

Re:  Full Fathom Five

 

The earliest surviving version is by Robert Johnson (c1583-1633). A performance of it, along with other Tempest music, may be found here, starting at around 31:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOdzuhtbv1A

 

Jeff Dailey

Collectio Musicorum

 

 

 

Ado Productions in Ohio

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 29.0239  Friday, 29 June 2018

 

From:        Kezia Sproat <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         June 28, 2018 at 2:16:25 PM EDT

Subject:    Ado Productions in Ohio

 

FREE PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTION OF MUCH ADO

 

The Scioto Society, producer of the outstanding outdoor drama Tecumseh! presents “Shakespeare at Sugarloaf” every summer, by the equity actors who do the historical drama about the Shawnee leader. This year it will be Much Ado About Nothing, on Sunday July 29. Tickets are free but must be reserved. The outdoor theatre on Sugarloaf Mountain near Ohio’s first capital, Chillicothe, is itself worth the trip. Go to  tecumsehdrama.com to reserve tickets, tell your friends and students. 

 

For more about the area, go to visitChillicotheOhio.com.

 

Kezia Sproat

 

 

Macbeth Plot Flaws

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 29.0240  Friday, 29 June 2018

 

From:        Thomas M Lahey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         June 28, 2018 at 6:55:41 PM EDT

Subject:    Macbeth Plot Flaws

 

Dear Editor,

 

Please post the attached file as one that is requesting critique.

 

Thank you,

Tom

 

Link:  pdf Macbeth 2 Plot Flaws w%2Fo Appendix (2) (105 KB)

 

 

 

Young Shakespeare's Young Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 29.0238  Thursday, 28 June 2018

 

[1] From:        Pervez Rizvi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         June 27, 2018 at 12:15:57 PM EDT

     Subj:         Re: Young Shakespeare's Young Hamlet 

 

[2] From:        Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         June 27, 2018 at 2:09:38 PM EDT

     Subj:         Re: SHAKSPER: Young Hamlet 

 

[3] From:        Arlynda Boyer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         June 27, 2018 at 10:06:31 PM EDT

     Subj:         Re: SHAKSPER: Young Hamlet 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Pervez Rizvi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         June 27, 2018 at 12:15:57 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: Young Shakespeare's Young Hamlet

 

I don’t agree at all with Steve Roth but I found his post very interesting, especially as he is independent of the New Oxford Shakespeare team and was evidently convinced by them. A few comments from me, in response to Steve’s invitation:

 

Anyone who offers the theory that Bourus does should also offer an explanation why some of the verse in Q1, especially in the first scene, sounds so much like the mature Shakespeare. That is the elephant in the room and, although I don’t have Bourus’ book to hand, my recollection is that she does not notice it. Consider Marcellus’ speech, quoted below from the ISE text by Bevington:

 

Good, now sit down, and tell me, he that knows,

Why this same strict and most observant watch

So nightly toils the subject of the land,

And why such daily cost of brazen cannon

And foreign mart for implements of war,

Why such impress of shipwrights, whose sore task

Does not divide the Sunday from the week:

What might be toward, that this sweaty march

Doth make the night joint laborer with the day?

Who is't that can inform me?

 

Who was writing like this in 1589? If Shakespeare, then why did his style regress so much that we don’t hear that mature verse again in the plays he wrote or co-wrote in the early 1590s, e.g. the Henry VI plays? 

 

Steve refers us to Taylor and Loughnane’s chapter in the Authorship Companion. A couple of snippets from it are worth noting. They accept Bourus’ view that Shakespeare wrote an early Hamlet and they give its date range as 1575-1589. Unless that 1575 is a typo for 1585, it seems they think that Shakespeare might have written a Hamlet play when he was eleven years old. They also write (p. 548): “One can accept the claim that Shakespeare wrote the early Hamlet without accepting that Q1 represents that early version.” That is a hugely important point but they say nothing more about it. Was that a diplomatic silence, a sign that they were prepared to buy their co-editor’s theory only up to a point?

 

Steve mentions “...Q1’s greater proximity to the source, hence its composition prior to Q2...”. The same premise, that when a play is revised it moves away from its source material, is found in arguments for the alleged revision of King Lear. I don’t see a logical basis for this. If an author decides to refresh his memory of his source before he revises a play, the revision might show more traces of the source than the original, might it not? For all we know, an author might revise a play because he has re-read the source and it has made him want to improve his dramatisation of it.

 

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         June 27, 2018 at 2:09:38 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Young Hamlet

 

Gabriel Egan: 

 

"My EEBO-TCP searches [for sixten] give different results from Steve’s"

 

Gabriel is correct. I obviously screwed up my search, I have no idea how.

 

Here's what I get for 1473–1700. (Almost all of these come from the 25,000 EEBO records that have keyed full text.) 

 

 

Document hits

Instances

sixten

14

32

sixteen

2348

7815

sixteene

941

3254

sixeteene

63

105

sixeten

0

0

 

So sexten was a (quite rare) usage in the day, at least by compositors of books that are in EEBO. So F1 compositor E could have misinterpreted manuscript sexten to mean sixten. Though the usage's rarity makes this seem less likely.

 

Thanks, Gabriel!

 

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Arlynda Boyer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         June 27, 2018 at 10:06:31 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Young Hamlet

 

Steve Roth might be interested in Ron Rosenbaum’s article of a few years ago in the Chronicle of Higher Education, although in it Rosenbaum pitted Tiffany Stern’s interpretation of Q1 as a text taken by note-takers versus Bourus’s interpretation and depicted their respective work as a highly personal cat fight (ah, academic misogyny). That said, here’s the link: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Shakespeare-s-Badass-Quarto/235158

 

 

 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.