• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Gammer Gurton's Needle in Performance"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0249  Thursday, 1 May 2008

[1]	From:	William Proctor Williams <wpw@uakron.edu>
	Date:	Tuesday, 29 Apr 2008 21:32:30 -0400
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6

[2]	From:	Bob Grumman <bobgrumman@nut-n-but.net>
	Date:	Wednesday, 30 Apr 2008 06:08:02 -0500
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6

[3]	From:	John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com>
	Date:	Wednesday, 30 Apr 2008 14:41:31 +0100
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6

[4]	From:	Diana Price <dianaprice49@yahoo.com>
	Date:	Wednesday, 30 Apr 2008 10:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		William Proctor Williams <wpw@uakron.edu>
Date:		Tuesday, 29 Apr 2008 21:32:30 -0400
Subject: 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6

Someone is going to say this pretty soon so it might as well be me. 
Henslowe's "ne" does not necessarily mean "new." It can mean a range of 
things from newly licensed, to newly modified, to new in the repertory, 
to actually new, and, perhaps, at Newington Butts. See the introduction 
to R. A. Foakes' 2nd edition of the Diary (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 
xxxiv-xxxv and the note by Winifred Frazer in Notes & Queries 38 (1991) 
34-35.

William Proctor Williams

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Bob Grumman <bobgrumman@nut-n-but.net>
Date:		Wednesday, 30 Apr 2008 06:08:02 -0500
Subject: 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6

Thanks for the data about Henslowe's "ne" as the evidence for first 
performances from Tom and John. Two plays got the tag, but I can't take 
it as strong evidence for premieres. I've read that it merely meant (or 
could have merely meant) new for Henslowe's theatre. The good gate 
receipts for Titus may merely have meant that an old under-performed 
and/or off-Broadway play was finally getting big-Name actors in a big 
theatre. If more than a few plays by others that Henslowe marked "ne" 
were definitely premiered when he marked them such would be good 
evidence against my position, I admit. But I can't believe Shakespeare 
didn't write such a junko play long before 1594. Yes, that's a very 
subjective view. Maybe he wrote it long before its premiere, if its 
premiere WAS in 1594--maybe when he was just hanging on with some troupe 
that didn't want to do it. Then he had a break, and suddenly Titus was 
appealing to Henslowe.

--Bob G.

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com>
Date:		Wednesday, 30 Apr 2008 14:41:31 +0100
Subject: 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6

Thomas Pendleton wrote:

 >Henslowe's record of the "ne" "harey the vj" on March 3, 1591 (for
 >1592) is sometimes taken as the premiere of 1 Henry VI. But this, I
 >think, is much more problematical.

"Often" or "usually" rather than "sometimes." In any case, there isn't 
any other known play which it can be, and the 'rose' references in 1 
Henry 6 make it the likely candidate. We don't know where 2&3 Henry 6 
were performed, but it is likely to have been at The Theatre, and 1 
Henry 6 may originally have been planned for there, but by the time it 
was written Strange's Men had moved to the Rose - Shakespeare probably 
wrote the rose-plucking scene specially. 2&3 Henry 6 may have stayed 
with the Burbages at The Theatre and been taken on tour by Pembroke's 
Men (whoever they were) in 1592-3.

 >Bob Grumman's implicit objection that we have few (if any) records of
 >Shakespearean premieres is quite accurate.

I'm sure that Steve Sohmer will be along in a minute to not only tell 
you the date of the premiere of Julius Caesar, but the actual time of 
the performance :-)

John Briggs

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Diana Price <dianaprice49@yahoo.com>
Date:		Wednesday, 30 Apr 2008 10:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0247 Thomas Kyd and 1 Henry 6

John Pendleton and John Briggs have cited Henslowe's "ne" as an 
indication that a play so marked was "new." In an article that appeared 
in Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama (vol. 42, 2003), I 
propose an alternative solution - that "ne" marks a performance at which 
twice the usual admission fee was charged at the doors, whether that 
performance was - or was not - the premiere. I also propose that 
Henslowe's papers contain evidence to suggest that "ne" signifies his 
shorthand for "twice" the usual entry fee, and that this theory can be 
tested by examining certain revenues collected at the Rose playhouse. 
Should any SHAKSPER member wish a copy of the paper, please e-mail me 
off-list.

Diana Price

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, editor@shaksper.net
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.

• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Gammer Gurton's Needle in Performance"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]