The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 28.204  Thursday, 13 July 2017


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

Date:         Thursday, July 13, 2017

Subject:    Explanation


Dear Subscribers,


An explanation is due for the interruption. I got a new 27”, Retina 5K iMac to replace my older one. I gave the older one to my son-in-law and told him to wipe it. I restored using Time Machine, only to find that Time Machine did not restore my apps; so, after attending a wedding in South Carolina, I spent the past days trying to restore as many of them as I could. One that I couldn’t was PhotoShop CS5.1, but I do have a working Lightroom so I don’t have to shell out for a new version.


This interruption is yet another reason that I need an Associate Editor to take over when I am unable to edit Newsletters myself—more to come in this regard.





Agreeing with Urkowitz - Formerly “Texts of King Lear”

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 28.203  Tuesday, 4 July 2017


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

Date:         June 13, 2017 at 3:19:48 PM EDT

Subject:    Agreeing with Urkowitz - Formerly “Texts of King Lear”


[Editor’s Note: When I posted Jim Carroll’s Agreeing with Urkowitz - Formerly “Texts of King Lear,” I did not include the images that when along with the post. So I am reprinted the submission as it was intended. –Hardy]


I meant to respond to these posts by Steve Urkowitz (which I agree with %100 by the way) much earlier but a combination of bad sciatica, a longer commute and forced relocation prevented a timely response.


Here’s one of Steve Urkowitz’ responses from May 23, where he quotes part of an earlier post by Gerald Downs:


Urkowitz: --->Here's a conclusion to a recent Blind Guy One narrative:  note the diction of “superfluous” and “fatuous,” “corrupt” and “self-interested.”


Downs--->"The malady surely extended to passages in prose, where “space-metal” was conserved by using margins so wide that restoration in Q1 presented a difficult problem. I believe one solution was to remove superfluous text. Whether the cuts were recorded or discovered during F redaction, their frequent restoration indicates probable eyeskip omission of other text. That would explain the lack of normal evidence in Q and F and the fatuous nature of the F additions. Perhaps some examples will show why the inference is virtually forced: remember, Q is a corrupt report made over by a series of self-interested print house agents."


The method of labelling something obviously good as bad probably has a name that I’m not aware of (not quite “poisoning the well”, where you begin an argument with something that actually is bad) but it’s a common technique in the pseudo-scholarship of Shakespeare studies. Vickers, in his awful book on supposed Shakespearean plays that may be co-authored, uses the technique as well as a variation on the poisoning-the-well technique, where he quotes some other idiot’s (like T.M. Parrott) poor opinion of Titus Andronicus before he begins his own disparagement.


For example, when Vickers wants to find likenesses between Titus and Peele, he accepts the F1 editorial changes:


Q1 2.2 The hunt is vp the Moone is bright and gray,

F1 2.2 The hunt is vp, the morne is bright and gray,


Early in the morning the moon could be up, and it would be both bright and grey, so the original Q1 version makes sense. But Vickers wants to find some comparison between this and Peele's Old Wives Tale: 


OWT: The day is cleare, the Welkin bright and gray


so he accepts the F1 version.


But when Vickers wants to use Parrott’s disparagement of the line in 1.1 that uses the word “pantheon”, he again uses the version that makes the least sense:


"Ascend, fair Queen, Pantheon. Lords, accompany"


which a modern editorial choice. Both Q1 and F1 have "pantheon" modify "lords":


Q1: Afcend faire Queene: Panthean Lords accompany


F1: Afcend Faire Qeene[sic],

Panthean Lords, accompany


Vickers quotes Parrott concerning the first version above, Co-Author, p157:


“As [Parrott] put it, ‘though one rose from the dead to persuade us, no ear trained to the music of Shakespeare’s verse could accept such lines as his’, indeed, Parrott could not find a single trace of Shakespeare’s hand in the whole act.’” 


Which is idiotic, since the act is full of Shakespeare’s usual touches. If you assume that “pantheon” in this case is just a figurative way of saying “most high”, and “accompany” is pronounced “accomp’ny”, it’s just a typical feminine ending.


Later (May 24th), Steve points out the use of hendiadys in Hamlet:


“Before looking at LEAR, first consider another instance of Shakespearean authorial revision from another multiple-text play. The rhetorical figure hendyadis—where two nouns linked with the conjunction “and” are used to describe another noun, as in “a rogue and peasant slave”—was included in rhetorical handbooks. In a prize-winning, often-reprinted essay in PMLA (1983) George T Wright noticed that alone among professional playwrights of his time Shakespeare regularly uses the figure hendyadis, averaging five or six instances in each of his plays.”


The Wright paper should be essential reading for any student of Shakespeare’s style. But Vickers uses another trick in the pseudo-scholar’s handbook, that of redefining the term in question, a kind of moving-the-goal-posts trick. Foster used hendiadys in his argument for the Funeral Elegy as Shakespearean, so Vickers proceeded to re-define the examples in the Elegy as non-hendiadys, and to re-define many of Wright’s examples as well! Foster also pointed out many of the likenesses between the Funeral Elegy and “A Lover’s Complaint”, so Vickers then tried to re-define ALC as non-Shakespearean, and the attribution to Davies that resulted is one of the more absurd attributions in the history of Shakespearean scholarship. This technique is not confined to Shakespeare studies, it happens in the sciences too.


Over the last 5 years or so it has been claimed that Neandertals mated with early modern humans. Such claims are easy to make when you rely on statistical analysis of genomes, without references to the fossils, or even without reference to basic concepts in evolution, such as speciation. That these two mated seems as unlikely to me as chimps and orangutans mating:



But without the pictures, how would you know? The Neandertal bones are vastly thicker, the orbits are much larger, the skull is low and long, the rib cage is conical like a gorilla’s:



If they mated, why didn’t human forms become more robust, rather than more gracile? Why would they differentiate in the first place if they could mate? Years ago on the ANTHRO-L listserv I postulated that the larger eyes of the Neandertals could mean that they were crepuscular and/or nocturnal, that they therefore occupied a significantly different environmental niche, and that would explain the speciation, as well as their robustness, as they might have had to grab and fight animals by hand rather than use a bow and arrow. Now, that may be completely wrong, but at least it makes sense. But when you point out the physical differences, the proponents of the mating theory just re-define what makes a fossil “modern human” versus “Neandertal”, and begin to include the more robust forms. The neandertal issue is also much like Vickers’ tricks with attribution in that Vickers depends on you not having a collection of Peele or Davies on hand to examine so you can see how ridiculous the claims are, he can just take words out of context at will.


Jim Carroll




Shakespeare at Sugarloaf

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 28.202  Tuesday, 4 July 2017


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

Date:         June 26, 2017 at 1:48:52 PM EDT

Subject:    Shakespeare at Sugarloaf


Great free Shakespeare in Southern Ohio

MND July 23, Hamlet August 6



On Sunday July 23, the Scioto Society will present a free performance of Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream at Sugarloaf Mountain Amphitheatre, and on Sunday, August 6 they’ll present Hamlet.  You can order free tickets online at tecumsehdrama.com 


Equity actors, a great theatre. Please spread the word, especially to your local middle and high school English teachers.







The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 28.201  Tuesday, 4 July 2017


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

Date:         July 4, 2017 at 2:29:56 PM EDT

Subject:    PUBLICATION OF JUNE ISSUE Early Theatre 20.1


Early Theatre is pleased to announce the publication of issue 20.1, which includes the following articles, review essay, and book reviews:



Leicester’s Men and the Lost Telomo of 1583

Domenico Lovascio


‘Sick interpreters’: Criticizing Historical Adaptations of Cardinal Wolsey in Shakespeare’s Henry VIII

Nadia Thérèse Van Pelt


Reading the Royal Entry (1604) in/as Print

Heather C. Easterling


Material / Blackness: Race and Its Material Reconstructions on the Seventeenth-Century English Stage

Morwenna Carr


The Vow Breaker and William Sampson’s Role in ‘the Anne Willoughby Affair’

Emanuel Stelzer


Trumpeters from China in Bristol in 1577?

Matteo Pangallo


A Possible Extension of Henslowe’s and Alleyn’s Sussex Network?

            Paul Quinn 





Affective Inheritances

Lesel Dawson and Eric Langley





Nicole R. Rice and Margaret Aziza Pappano. The Civic Cycles: Artisan Drama and Identity. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 2015. Pp 360.

Reviewed by Alexandra F. Johnston


Elizabeth Zeman Kolkovich. The Elizabethan Country House Entertainment: Print, Performance, and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Pp 256.

Reviewed by Wendy Wall


Nicoleta Cinpoeş (ed.). Doing Kyd: Essays on The Spanish Tragedy. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2016. Pp 240.

Reviewed by Marianne Montgomery


W.R. Streitberger. The Masters of the Revels and Elizabeth I’s Court Theatre. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Pp xv, 319.

Reviewed by Curtis Perry


Allison P. Hobgood. Passionate Playgoing in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Pp x, 236.

Reviewed by Katharine Goodland


Eoin Price. ‘Public’ and ‘Private’ Playhouses in Renaissance England: The Politics of Publication. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Pp x, 95.

Reviewed by Holger Schott Syme


Jerry Brotton. This Orient Isle: Elizabethan England and the Islamic World. London: Allen Lane, 2016. Pp xv, 358.

Reviewed by Richard Allen Cave


Gwilym Jones. Shakespeare’s Storms. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015. Pp xi, 198.

Reviewed by Edward J. Geisweidt


Farah Karim-Cooper. The Hand on the Shakespearean Stage: Gesture, Touch and the Spectacle of Dismemberment. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Pp 309.

Reviewed by Miranda Fay Thomas


David Crystal. The Oxford Dictionary of Original Shakespearean Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Pp 704.

Reviewed by Sarah Grandage


Simone Chess. Male-to-Female Crossdressing in Early Modern English Literature: Gender, Performance, and Queer Relations. New York: Routledge, 2016. Pp xi, 196.

Reviewed by Jennifer Panek


Rebecca Yearling. Ben Jonson, John Marston and Early Modern Drama: Satire and the Audience. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2016. Pp 223.

            Reviewed by José A. Pérez Díez


Helen M Ostovich  <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>


Founding Editor, Early Theatre <http://earlytheatre.org/>

Series Editor, Studies in Performance and Early Modern Drama https://www.routledge.com/performance/series/SPEMD

Series Editor, Late Tudor and Stuart Drama (https://mip-archumanitiespress.org/series/mip/late-tudor-stuart-drama/)

Professor Emerita, English and Cultural Studies

McMaster University




Shakespeare First Folio Special Issue Announcement

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 28.200  Tuesday, 4 July 2017


From:        Jean-Christophe Mayer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         June 30, 2017 at 7:41:20 AM EDT

Subject:    Shakespeare First Folio Special Issue Announcement 


Dear SHAKSPERians, 


Colleagues in the field of book history and Shakespearean reception (but not exclusively) may be interested in the latest special issue of Cahiers Elisabethains entitled “New Perspectives on Shakespeare’s First Folio”. It is in part devoted to the recent discovery of a new copy of an (annotated) First Folio in northern France in 2014 in the town of Douai. 


However, Shakespeareans and scholars in every field will also find new and stimulating thought by leading experts on what is a rare book like the First Folio and how the cultural aura around it was and is constructed.


As an added bonus, you can consult the entire Saint-Omer copy digitized in high definition from your desktop by clicking on this link:




Finally, an account of the annotations (with illustrations) was also published in Cahiers Elisabethains in June 2015:






With our very best wishes,

Line Cottegnies, Universite Paris-Sorbonne Nouvelle and Jean-Christophe Mayer (French National Centre for Scientific Research - CNRS)




Cahiers Elisabéthains- Volume: 93, Number: 1 (July 2017)


New Perspectives on Shakespeare’s First Folio


Introduction Line Cottegnies, Jean-Christophe Mayer

The Saint-Omer Folio in its library Line Cottegnies


‘The strictest, orderlyest, and best bredd in the world’ Maurice Whitehead


Shakespeare’s First Folio and the fetish of the book Brian Cummings


Who edited the Shakespeare First Folio? Eric Rasmussen


The hero, the villain, the princess, and the book Emma Smith


Binding and unbinding Roger Chartier



Performance in context


Romeo and Juliet and ekphrastic criticism in practice Susan L Fischer


The ‘Cumberbatch’ Hamlet (1) Boika Sokolova, Nicoleta Cinpoeş

The ‘Cumberbatch’Hamlet (2) Aidan Elliott



Play review


Play review: Romeo+Juliet Alan Forrest Hickman



Books received

Books received Janice Valls-Russell



Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.