========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 16:30:58 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0001 SHAKSPER Is Back Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0001. Thursday, 4 January 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, January 4, 1996 Subject: SHAKSPER Is Back: Bowie State Welcomes the Members of SHAKSPER Dear SHAKSPEReans: SHAKSPER's move from the University of Toronto to Bowie State is now partially complete. Needless to say, we discovered more problems than we had expected before the Christmas break; after that the University was virtually closed until after New Year's; after that we discovered we had made several mistakes; and thus the long interruption in service. However, most appears well now. As a reminder, the new list address is SHAKSPER@ws.BowieState.edu, while LISTSERV is now LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu. Please make note of both these addresses. The basic procedures remain the same. Mail your submissions either to the list address SHAKSPER@ws.BowieState.edu or directly to me HMCook@boe00.minc.umd.edu, but please give me a few days to catch up. Remember, SHAKSPER is moderated, so all submission come to me before I edit them into digests and send them out to you. As it turns out, LISTSERV works quite differently on UNIX than it does under VM. As a result, I am in the process of completely redoing the Filelist. This means that many LISTSERV command will not work at the present and as I just found out some command, such as the DATABASE FUNCTION, will not work at all. It's going to take some time for me to work through the backup of submissions, get the fileserver set up, re-do most of the explanatory files, learn about UNIX, and somehow get my ISA preparation together. Please bear with me. I would, however, like to express my deepest appreciation to Steve Younker, the LISTSERV Maintainer at the University of Toronto and to the University of Toronto for hosting SHAKSPER since its birth in July 1990 and for assisting me when I took over as SHAKSPER's editor. Thanks, Steve. I would also like to thank Jerry Rossignuolo, the System Administrator at Bowie State University's Computer Science Department. Jerry undertook the technical end of the move down here; no small task indeed. Thanks, Jerry. He and I will be maintaining LISTSERV and SHAKSPER at Bowie State, and we have many plans for placing the past years logs on our gopher server and setting up a SHAKSPER WWW site. Here is the new SHAKSPER announcement for you information: ******************************************************************************* S H A K S P E R: The Global Electronic Shakespeare Conference SHAKSPER is the international electronic conference for Shakespearean researchers, instructors, students, and those who share their academic interests and concerns. It currently includes more than 1100 SHAKSPEReans (many of whom are prominent in the field), from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Iceland, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States. Like the national and international Shakespeare Association conferences, SHAKSPER offers announcements and bulletins, scholarly papers, and the formal exchange of ideas -- but SHAKSPER also offers on-going opportunities for spontaneous informal discussion, eavesdropping, peer review, and a sense of worldwide scholarly community. In addition, the SHAKSPER Fileserver offers conference papers and abstracts, an International Directory of Shakespeare Institutes, biographies of conference members, and a variety of announcements, texts, and bibliographies. The daily SHAKSPER digests are organized by subject for the reader's convenience. SHAKSPER digests include conference announcements, member notes and queries, book and theatre reviews, textual debate, discussion of lecture strategies, and much more. Technically, SHAKSPER is a LISTSERV "list" running under UNIX on an Sun work station (a Sparc 4, running Solaris 2.5) at Bowie State University in Bowie, Maryland. The list editor, Hardy M. Cook, is a Professor of English at Bowie State University and can be contacted at or . No academic qualifications are required for membership in SHAKSPER, and anyone interested in English Literature, the Renaissance, or Drama is welcome to join us. Write to the editor -- HMCook@boe00.minc.umd.edu -- or send a one-line e-mail message, reading "SUB SHAKSPER firstname lastname" to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, and you will receive detailed information with further instructions for becoming a SHAKSPERean. [SHAKSPER is edited/moderated and is not open to automatic subscription.] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 17:52:00 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0002 Re: Development of Individualism Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0002. Thursday, 4 January 1996. (1) From: Joanne Woolway Date: Wednesday, 13 Dec 1995 12:06:45 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0960 Q: Development of Individualism (2) From: Ton Hoenselaars Date: Wednesday, 13 Dec 1995 14:59:35 -0600 (CST) Subj: RE: SHK 6.0960 Q: Development of Individualism; (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 13 Dec 1995 09:56:52 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0960 Q: Development of Individualism (4) From: Jesus Cora Date: Wednesday, 13 Dec 1995 18:42:55 UTC+0200 Subj: SHK 6.0960 Q: Development of Individualism; (5) From: Kezia Vanmeter Sproat Date: Thursday, 14 Dec 1995 08:49:05 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0960 Q: Development of Individualism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Woolway Date: Wednesday, 13 Dec 1995 12:06:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0960 Q: Development of Individualism For Jesus Cora- Re: individualism and theatre. I suggest you try Katharine Eisman Maus's Inwardness and Theater in the English Renaissance (Chicago UP, 1995). There's a review of it in Early Modern Literary Studies - http://unixg.ubc.ca:7001/0/e-sources/emls/emlshome.html Joanne Woolway (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ton Hoenselaars Date: Wednesday, 13 Dec 1995 14:59:35 -0600 (CST) Subject: RE: SHK 6.0960 Q: Development of Individualism; Dear Jesus Cora, there should be a great deal of interest in Catherine Belsey's *The Subject of Tragedy*. Her pages on *Hamlet* might prove particularly stimulating. Ton Hoenselaars, Utrecht University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 13 Dec 1995 09:56:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0960 Q: Development of Individualism Jesus Cora writes: >I am very interested in the development of individualism and self-consciousness >during the first part of the 17th century and its influence on the drama of the >period. Could you kindly recommend bibliography on the subject? I am specially >interested on the parallel development of self-conciousness and self-reference >in drama (you know, metatheatre and metadrama). Since I was a young boy, I've heard the assertion that individualism and self-consciousness did not exist before a period vaguely defined as the Renaissance. One reason for this assertion was unsigned works of art in a period vaguely defined as the Middle Ages. But, of course, there are plenty of signed works of art in this amorphous period: Boethius, Dante, Chaucer, not to mention the dead white female Europeans like Heloise and Christine de Pisan. And there was plenty of individualism and self-consciousness in the Graeco-Roman period. Would we say that Socrates was not self-conscious? That Gaius Julius Caesar was not individualistic? And Cleopatra? Plutarch? I realize that we are here dealing with subjectivity -- impossible to isolate and analyze in the laboratory. But isn't it just possible that individualism and self-conscious subjectivity (is there another kind?) are part of what defines us as an animal species? Or is it even possible that all mammals are self-conscious individualists? I realize that Montaigne contemplated these questions in the 16th century. (My cat just jumped into my lap!) Yours, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Wednesday, 13 Dec 1995 18:42:55 UTC+0200 Subject: SHK 6.0960 Q: Development of Individualism; Dear Shakespeareans, On reading my e-mail, especially 1) the discussion on soliloquies and the question of whether they must be interpreted as the expression of inner thought, and 2) my own query about the development of self-consciousness in early modern England, it has occurred to me that soliloquies "must need" reflect the interest in self-consciousness and inner-life of individuals that developed in early modern England. Therefore, in consonance with this interest, soliloquies must not have been delivered, so to speak, "looking the audience in the eye", but in a more detached way, as a "private" expression of the inner-self. I know that the conditions of performance in The Globe or other amphitheatres would not favour such practice, but, on the other hand, I think that Elizabethans would perfectly understand such procedure. Direct address to the audience belongs to the early mysteries, moralities and interludes, when the conventions and mechanics of drama were not so sophisticated. Yours, Jesus Cora Universidad de Alcala de Henares. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kezia Vanmeter Sproat Date: Thursday, 14 Dec 1995 08:49:05 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0960 Q: Development of Individualism My late friend Rolf Soellner wrote a book, Shakespeare's Patterns of Self-Knowledge, published in 1972. It might be a good start. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 17:58:49 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0003 Abhorson; Voice-over Hamlet?; Renaissance typefaces Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0003. Thursday, 4 January 1996. (1) From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 12 Dec 1995 22:35:27 GMT Subj: Re: Abhorson (2) From: Greg Grainger Date: Tuesday, 12 Dec 1995 18:25:37 -0500 Subj: Voice-over Hamlet? (3) From: James Schaefer Date: Tuesday, 12 Dec 1995 22:49:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: RE: pantomime *Hamlet* (4) From: Peter Guither Date: Wednesday, 13 Dec 1995 12:53:06 -0600 Subj: Re: Renaissance typefaces (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 12 Dec 1995 22:35:27 GMT Subject: Re: Abhorson I've no bright new reading of Abhorson's strained syllogism - but it's possible that in calling his trade a 'mystery' he is meaning a little more than 'profession' - the gloss preferred by Gibbons and accepted by others. Richard van Dulmen, in _Theatre of Horror_ (Polity Press, 1990) pp. 65-70, writes very interestingly of the ways in which, at least in Germany, the executioner was both reviled for his trade, and yet at the same time 'believed to be endowed with almost magical healing powers'. He concludes that he was considered 'uncanny, but also beneficial'. I don't know if there is any parallel for these beliefs in early modern England - but would be interested to find out. David Lindley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Greg Grainger Date: Tuesday, 12 Dec 1995 18:25:37 -0500 Subject: Voice-over Hamlet? On December 11, Michael Friedman wrote: > I started to wonder > about *To be or not to be*. If, as it has been asserted, most audiences know > it so well by now that they hardly pay attention to the words, does the actor > even need to speak the lines? What would happen if he just thought them? Not > with a voice-over, but silently, in his own head, accompanied by only those > gestures that a person, lost in agitated thought, might make. Didn't Mel Gibson do just this in his film version of Hamlet? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Tuesday, 12 Dec 1995 22:49:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: pantomime *Hamlet* What Michael Friedman describes sounds like a silent-film version of the play, with an occasional dialogue card ("There's the rub!"). I must assume that silent-era directors tried to film Shakespeare -- a totally boggling concept! -- and that they did not put all 4,000 lines of text on the screen. Has anyone seen such films, and do they bear any relationship to Friedman's proposal for dealing with "To be...."? Jim Schaefer Georgetown University (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Guither Date: Wednesday, 13 Dec 1995 12:53:06 -0600 Subject: Re: Renaissance typefaces The Illinois Shakespeare Festival has finally finished a working version of a font based on Shakespeare's Folio. The main structure of this font will work best for limited use (it's great for display work, like the titles of the plays). In order to have a font that had some additional value, however, we added some characters to aid in its use for text. Because it was expected that its use would be greater for titles or display work, it has a more oblique feel than most of the text in the folio and some of the caps are a little fancy for that use (more like the italics used for songs or character names), but it still can work for text. In addition to the full set of upper and lower case letters, the font does contain two alternate versions of the lower case "s", one alternate of upper case "A", ligatures for "sh" and "ct" and some standard punctuation. The "read me" file contains some tips for using the alternate "s" versions. This should be considered a first version. With your feedback, we will attempt to fine-tune and add for future releases. Are there additional ligatures which would be useful? Should we have a second, non-oblique font that would be used for straight text? Are there other punctuation marks or symbols that are needed? Please let us know. Michael Scott Mann (a student at Illinois State University) did all the heavy lifting on this font and created the bulk of it, while I added ligatures, alternate characters, some refinements and finishing work. This font is Freeware. The Illinois Shakespeare Festival retains the rights to the font, but you may distribute and use it freely as long as it is not sold or altered and the "read me" file is included. The font is called "ILShakeFest" -- Wouldn't "FolioFont" or "Shakespeare" have been more appropriate? Probably. But that's what you pay for a free font. We get a little publicity. Fair trade? I uploaded the Mac version of the font to America Online a few days ago and it has been selected as "Font of the Week." It is available there in the "New Uploads" section of "Desktop Publishing." The PC version will be uploaded within the week. Both PC/Windows and Mac versions of the font are available at our web site: http://orathost.cfa.ilstu.edu/isf.html which also includes a graphic image of the font. Both versions include both Type 1 and Truetype fonts. The PC version is ".zip" and the Mac version is ".sit.hqx" so you'll need the proper utilities for de-compressing. (stuffit expander for the Mac will work just fine, and any unzipping program for the PC) If any Shaksper members have trouble getting files from the web, email me at pguithe@oratmail.cfa.ilstu.edu and I'll be happy to send the appropriate version to you. Hope you find it useful, and I await your comments, suggestions and critiques! Peter Guither General Manager, Illinois Shakespeare Festival ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 15:19:26 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0004 LISTSERV Commands Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0004. Friday, 5 January 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, January 5, 1996 Subject: LISTSERV Commands Dear SHASKPEReans, As I indicated yesterday, I am only just discovering that LISTSERV works quite differently under UNIX on a workstation than it does under VM on a mainframe. I've been on-line almost constantly -- with an interruption for some sleep -- since yesterday morning, trying to get as much of SHAKSPER operable as I can. As I also indicated, some functions and commands do NOT work under UNIX that did under VM. Unfortunately, for the time being, we will not have the DATABASE FUNCTION (bad for all of us), and I will not have the GIVE command (bad for my ability to quickly assist you with ordering a file). Nor will we have the use of mail packages (also bad for my distributing introductory files to new members). However, much the rest will all appear the same to you all as end users. I am including below a list of basic LISTSERV commands for your use. In the next post, I'm send you a copy of the SHAKSPER FILES file, which has also has instructions for ordering files from the SHAKSPER Fileserver. I'm made about 75% of the files available now and will continue working on the remaining ones -- UNIX requires these files be in lower case, but they all arrived from the University of Toronto in capitals, and there's no quick fix for this problem. I did manage to clear up about 70 of the 100 or so SHAKSPER messages that have been collecting in my mailbox and will strive to catch up on the postings I have not sent out as quickly as I can. Then maybe I can get back to my ISA project before I'm called back for other university duties. --Hardy ****************************************************************************** Basic LISTSERV Commands Below you will find a set of basic LISTSERV commands. REMEMBER, all of these commands should be sent to the LISTSERV Address -- LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu -- NOT to the LIST Address -- SHAKSPER@ws.BowieState.edu. ^^^ ___________________________________ ____________________________________ If you want to do the following, to Send this in a one-line mail message ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------ Subscribe SUB SHAKSPER FirstName LastName Unsubscribe SIGNOFF SHAKSPER Stop SHAKSPER Mailings Temporarily SET SHAKSPER NOMAIL Restart SHAKSPER Mailings SET SHAKSPER MAIL Change TO a Single Daily Digest SET SHAKSPER DIGEST Change FROM Digest TO Regular Mailings SET SHAKSPER INDEX Receive Confirmation of Your Posting SET SHAKSPER REPRO See Your SHAKSPER Options QUERY SHAKSPER Get a Listing of All Commands HELP Get a List of All Subscribers GET SHAKSPER FILE or REVIEW SHAKSPER BY NAME or REVIEW SHAKSPER or REVIEW SHAKSPER COUNTRY Get a List of Files on Fileserver GET SHAKSPER FILES Get a File from the Fileserver GET Filetype Filename Get SHAKSPER Guide GET SHAKSPER GUIDE Get Log of Previous Discussions GET SHAKSPER LOG9601a (This example gets log of first week of January 1996 Discussions) Note that these commands are NOT "case-sensitive." In other words, LISTSERV doesn't care WHAT case you use, just the characters used. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 15:29:46 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0005 SHAKSPER FILES Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0005. Friday, 5 January 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, January 5, 1996 Subject: SHAKSPER FILES Files Available on the SHAKSPER Fileserver ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Fileserver Procedures: SHAKSPEReans can retrieve any of files below from the SHAKSPER Fileserver by sending a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET ". For further information, consult the appropriate section of your SHAKSPER GUIDE, or contact the editor -- or . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Current Contents of the SHAKSPER Fileserver ----------------------------------------------- Updated January 5, 1996 * Indicates not currently available. File Package for New Members: ------------------------------------------------------------------- *SHAKSPER GUIDE The Information Manual for members of SHAKSPER. SHAKSPER MEMBERS Current list of all SHAKSPER members and their electronic addresses. SHAKSPER FILES A descriptive listing of the SHAKSPER Fileserver's contents (this file). SHAKSPER ANNOUNCE An introduction to the SHAKSPER Conference, and instructions on becoming a member. [This file is available for redistribution.] Reference Files: -------------------------------------------------------------------- DIRECTRY INSTITUT A directory of Shakespearean institutes, organizations, journals, and libraries. Additions welcome. RIVERSID ERRORS A listing of errors in the Electronic Text Corporation WordCruncher Riverside Shakespeare compiled by Ken Steele. Additions welcome. SPINOFF BIBLIO A bibliography of poems, novels, plays, and films inspired by Shakespeare's life and works.Begun by Lawrence Schimel; updated by Hardy Cook. Additions welcome. CHARACTR BIBLIO A bibliography of works in which Shakespeare figures as a character. Begun by Lawrence Schimel; updated by Hardy Cook. Additions welcome. MONSTERP SPINOFF A Sesame Street "Monsterpiece Theatre" version of *Hamlet* with Mel Gibson. ETHICAL TREATISS A List of Pre-eminent Ethical Treatises of the 16th Century in conjectural order of importance. Compiled by Ben Schneider, Lawrence University, August 1994. Scholarly Papers: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Cacicedo, Al. "Private Parts" Preliminary notes for an essay on gender identity in Shakespeare. (PRIVATE PARTS) Cook, Hardy M. "Two *Lear*s for Television: An Exploration of Televisual Strategies." *Literature/Film Quarterly*. 14 (1986): 179-186. Reprinted in Bulman and Coursen *Shakespeare and Television: An Anthology of Essays and Reviews*, 122-129. (TWOLEARS FOR_TV) ---. "Jane Howell's BBC First Tetralogy:Theatrical and Televisual Manipulation." *Literature/Film Quarterly*. 20 (1992): 326-331. (HOWELL BBC) ---. "A Shakespearean in the Electronic Study." A paper. submitted to the computing approaches seminar of the 1990 SAA conference in Philadelphia. (ELECTRON STUDY) ---. Review of Janet Adelman's *Suffocating Mothers: Fantasies of Maternal Origins in Shakespeare's Plays, HAMLET to THE TEMPEST* (New York and London: Routledge, 1992). *Shakespeare Newsletter* (42.2, Summer 1992, 29-30). (MOTHERS REVIEW) ---. "Valuing the Material Text: A Plea for a Change in Policy Concerning Selection of Reference Texts for Future New Variorum Shakespeare Editions, with Examples from the 1609 Quarto of SHAKE-SPEARES SONNETS." A paper submitted to the "Shakespeare's Sonnets: Mapping Uncertainty" seminar of the 1994 SAA conference in Albuquerque. (MATERIAL TEXT) Evett, David. "Remembering Death: Deathbed Scenes in Shakespeare's Plays and the Visual Tradition." Seminar Paper for Shakespeare and the Graphic Arts. 1994 Annual Meeting of SAA. (DEATHBED SCENES) Godshalk, William Leigh. "*Twelfth Night*: All or Nothing? What You Will, It's All One -- Or Is It?" (12NIGHT ALLONOTH) Green, Douglas E. "New-Minted Shakespeare: Old Currency in a New Classroom Economy." 1993 SAA seminar paper. (CLASSRM ECONOMY) Horton, Thomas B. (Thesis Abstract) A stylometric analysis of Shakespeare and Fletcher. (STYLOMET FLETCHER) Lancashire, Ian. "The Public Domain Shakespeare." Paper presented at 1992 MLA Session on Electronic Archives. (LANCSHIR PD_SHAKE) Lakowski, Ramuald I. "The Misogyny of Richard III in More's History of King Richard III and Shakespeare's King Richard the Third." (MORESHAK RICHARD3) Lamonico, Michael. "Teaching Shakespeare with a Computer" and "Seek Me Out By Computation." (COMPUTER TEACHING) Leslie, Robert W. "Shakespeare's Italian Dream: Cinquecento Sources for *A Midsummer Night's Dream*." (ITALIAN DREAM) Loughlin, Thomas W. "Shakespeare by Mail: An Experience in Distance Learning Using Electronic Mail." (LEARNING BY_EMAIL) McKenzie, Stanley D. "The Prudence and Kinship of Prince Hal and John of Lancaster in 2 Henry IV." (PRUDENCE KINSHIP) Matsuba, Stephen. "`The Cunning Pattern of Excelling Nature': Literary Computing and Shakespeare's Sonnets." A paper presented at the ALLC/ICCH conference, "The Dynamic Text," Toronto Canada, June 1989. (COMPUTER SONNETS) Schneider, Ben Ross. "Granville's Jew of Venice (1701): A Close Reading of Shakespeare's Merchant." (GRANVILL JEW_OF_V) Shand, G.B. Skip. "Queen of the First Quarto." Performance-oriented study of the Queen in the first Quarto *Hamlet*. Abstract: SHAND ABSTRACT SHAKSPER Paper: HAMLETQ1 QUEEN SHAKSPER Steele, Kenneth B. "Vowing, Swearing, and Superpraising of Parts: Petrarch and Pyramus in the Woods of Athens." Paper delivered at the 14th Annual Patristic, Medieval and Renaissance Conference, Villanova, Pennsylvania, September 1989. (PETRARCH PYRAMUS) ---. "`This Falls Out Better Than I Could Devise': Play-bound Playwrights and the Nature of Shakespearean Comedy." An expanded version of a paper contributed to the ludic elements seminar at the 1990 SAA Conference in Philadelphia. (SURROGAT PLAYWRIT) ---. "'Leaden Contemplation': Ambiguous Evidence of Revision in Q1 Love's Labour's Lost." Textual study of passages of duplication in Q1 LLL. Abstract: STEELE ABSTRACT SHAKSPER Paper: LLL-Q1 REVISION SHAKSPER ---. "`The Letter was not Nice but Full of Charge': Towards an Electronic Facsimile of Shakespeare." A paper presented at the ALLC/ICCH conference, "The Dynamic Text," Toronto Canada, June 1989. (DYNAMIC SHAKSPER) ---. "`Look What Thy Memory Cannot Contain': The Shakespeare Electronic Text Archive." _Shakespeare Bulletin_ 7:5 (September/ October 1989): 25-8. (WCRUNCHR SHAKSPER) Strickland, Ron. "Teaching Shakespeare Against the Grain." A shorter version appeared in *Teaching Shakespeare Today: Practical Approaches and Productive Strategies*. Eds. James Davis and Ronald Salomone. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English, 1993. (AGAINST THEGRAIN) Urkowitz, Stephen. "'Do me the kindnes to looke vpon this' and 'Heere, read, read': An Invitation to the Pleasures of Textual/ Sexual Di(Per)versity." Paper presented to the 1991 SAA in Vancouver. (URKOWITZ RJ-MWW) Waller, Gary. "Teaching the Late Plays as Family Romance." (FAMILY ROMANCE) Public Domain Shakespeare Files: -------------------------------------------------------------------- SONNETS 1609Q A transcription of the 1609 Quarto of Shakespeare's *Sonnets*, contributed to the public domain by Hardy M. Cook. Untagged Version. SONNETS TAG1609Q A fully tagged text of the 1609 Quarto of Shakespeare's *Sonnets*, contributed to the public domain by Hardy M. Cook. Tagged Version. HENRY8 FOLIO1 A thoroughly tagged text of the 1623 First Folio text of Shakespeare's *Henry VIII*, contributed to the public domain by Thomas B. Horton. CORNMARK ERRORS Text of Thomas Hull's (1728-1808) adaptation of Shakespeare's *Comedy of Errors* entered from Cornmarket Press's 1971 facsimile, contributed to the public domain by Thomas B. Horton. CIBBER R3 Text of Colly Cibber's *Richard III* transcribed by Thomas Dale Keever. Scripts: --------------------------------------------------------------------- WIVES SCRIPT An adaptation of *Merry Wives of Windsor* by David Richman, prepared for the ARTSREACH program of the University of New Hampshire's Department of Theatre and Dance. "Shakespeare and the Languages of of Performance" Electronic Workbook: --------------------------------------------------------------------- These files contains an Electronic Workbook record of the work of "Shakespeare and the Languages of Performance" -- an NEH Seminar that met at the Folger Shakespeare Library from September 1992 through May 1993. PERFORM1 SEMINAR The first part of the Seminar Workbook PERFORM2 SEMINAR The second part of the Seminar Workbook PERFORM3 SEMINAR The third part of the Seminar Workbook PERFORM4 SEMINAR The fourth part of the Seminar Workbook PERFORM5 SEMINAR The fifth part of the Seminar Workbook PERFORM6 SEMINAR The sixth part of the Seminar Workbook PERFORM7 SEMINAR The seventh part of the Seminar Workbook PERFORM8 SEMINAR The eighth part of the Seminar Workbook *Cahiers Elisabethains*: --------------------------------------------------------------------- CAHIERS INDEX Subject Index to the first twenty years of *Cahiers Elisabethains*, volumes 1 to 40 (1972-1991). The index was compiled by Angela R. Maguin and prepared for electronic distribution on SHAKSPER by Luc Borot. Indexes of Previous Discussions: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- *DISCUSS INDEX_1 An index to the first year's discussions on SHAKSPER. *DISCUSS INDEX_2 An index to the second year's discussions on SHAKSPER. *DISCUSS INDEX_3 An index to the third year's discussions on SHAKSPER. *DISCUSS INDEX_4 An index to the fourth year's discussions on SHAKSPER. *DISCUSS INDEX_5 An index to the fifth year's discussions on SHAKSPER. Member File(s) and Retrieval Program: ------------------------------------------------------------------- *SHAKSPER BIOGRAFY The first file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-00 BIOGRAFY The second file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-01 BIOGRAFY The third file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-02 BIOGRAFY The fourth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-03 BIOGRAFY The fifth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-04 BIOGRAFY The sixth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-05 BIOGRAFY The seventh file of SHAKSPER member bigraphies. *SHAKS-06 BIOGRAFY The eight file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-07 BIOGRAFY The ninth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-08 BIOGRAFY The tenth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-09 BIOGRAFY The eleventh file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-10 BIOGRAFY The twelfth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-11 BIOGRAFY The thirteenth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-12 BIOGRAFY The fourteenth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-13 BIOGRAFY The fifteenth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-14 BIOGRAFY The sixteenth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-15 BIOGRAFY The seventeenth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-16 BIOGRAFY The eighteenth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-17 BIOGRAFY The nineteenth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-18 BIOGRAFY The twentieth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-19 BIOGRAFY The twenty-first file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-20 BIOGRAFY The twenty-second file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-21 BIOGRAFY The twenty-third file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-22 BIOGRAFY The twenty-fourth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-23 BIOGRAFY The twenty-fifth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-24 BIOGRAFY The twenty-sixth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-25 BIOGRAFY The twenty-seventh file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-26 BIOGRAFY The twenty-eighth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-27 BIOGRAFY The twenty-ninth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-28 BIOGRAFY The thirtieth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-29 BIOGRAFY The thirty-first file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-30 BIOGRAFY The thirty-second file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-31 BIOGRAFY The thirty-third file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-32 BIOGRAFY The thirty-fourth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-33 BIOGRAFY The thirty-fifth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-34 BIOGRAFY The thirty-sixth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-35 BIOGRAFY The thirty-seventh file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-36 BIOGRAFY The thirty-eighth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. *SHAKS-37 BIOGRAFY The thirty-ninth volume of SHAKSPER biographies. *SHAKS-38 BIOGRAFY The fortieth volume of SHAKSPER biographies. SHAKS-39 BIOGRAFY The forty-first volume of SHAKSPER biographies. SHAKS-40 BIOGRAFY The forty-second volume -- in progress. SHAKSPER Monthly Logbooks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- All conference transmissions are automatically logged by LISTSERV in rather mechanically-named weekly notebooks. (Originally, logs were monthly.) SHAKSPER LOG9007 July 1990 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9008 August 1990 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9009 September 1990 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9010 October 1990 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9011 November 1990 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9012 December 1990 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9101 January 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9102 February 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9103 March 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9104 April 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9105 May 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9106 June 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9107 July 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9108 August 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9109a First September 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9109b Second September 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9110 October 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9111 November 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9112 December 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9201 January 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9202 February 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9203 March 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9204 April 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9205 May 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9206 June 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9207 July 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9208 August 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9209 September 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9210 October 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9211 November 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9212 December 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9301 January 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9302 February 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9303a First March 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9303b Second March 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9304 April 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9305 May 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9306 June 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9307 July 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9308 August 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9309a First September 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9309b Second September 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9310 October 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9311a First November 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9311b Second November 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9311c Third November 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9311d Fourth November 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9312a First December 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9312b Second December 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9401 First January 1994 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9401e Week Five January 1994 Logbook (SHAKSPER Logs are now available by week with letter indicating the week of the month.) SHAKSPER LOG9402a-d February 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9403a-e March 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9404a-e April 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9405a-e May 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9406a-e June 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9407a-e July 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9408a-e August 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9409a-e September 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9410a-e October 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9411a-e November 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9412a-e December 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9501a-e January 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9502a-e February 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9503a-e March 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9504a-e April 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9505a-e May 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9506a-e June 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9507a-f July 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9508a-f August 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9509a-e September 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9510a-e October 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9511a-e November 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9512a-e December 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9601a-e January 1996 Logbooks ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 15:33:46 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0006 New Site for MHRA Web Pages Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0006. Friday, 5 January 1996. From: Gerard Lowe Date: Tuesday, 12 Dec 1995 15:40:38 +0000 Subject: New site for MHRA web pages [Apologies if you receive this twice] Colleagues may be interested to know that the Modern Humanities Research Association's Web pages have moved to: http://www.cam.ac.uk/Libraries/MHRA The new pages provide information on the Association's scholarly publications, and include listings of current contents, forthcoming publications, guidelines for contributors and contact details for the following series:- *Annual Bibliography of English Language & Literature *MHRA Style Book *MHRA Texts & Dissertations *Modern Language Review *Portuguese Studies *Publications of the MHRA *Slavonic & East European Review *Yearbook of English Studies *Year's Work in Modern Language Studies ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 15:48:44 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0007 Qs: Rom Film; Anthologies; Screenplay; Matus; Questions Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0007. Friday, 5 January 1996. (1) From: Kim Hanna Date: Wednesday, 13 Dec 1995 18:01:37 -0800 Subj: Romeo and Juliet Film (2) From: Jim Swan Date: Wednesday, 13 Dec 1995 09:01:48 -0500 (EST) Subj: Elizabethan-Jacobean drama texts (3) From: Carole L. Hamilton Date: Friday, 15 Dec 1995 14:11:49 -0500 (EST) Subj: Screenplays of *Hamlet* (4) From: Don Foster Date: Saturday, 16 Dec 1995 13:29:10 +0100 Subj: Irvin Matus (5) From: Stephan Handzsuj Date: Friday, 5 Jan 96 14:23:48 +0100 Subj: Questions in the Tragedies (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Hanna Date: Wednesday, 13 Dec 1995 18:01:37 -0800 Subject: Romeo and Juliet Film Does anyone know where I can get hold of a copy of the 1920's German film Romeo and Juliet in the Snow (Romeo und Julia im Schnee) directed by Ernst Lubitsch? Regards Kim Hanna Artistic Director Melbourne University Student Union Theatre Department (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Swan Date: Wednesday, 13 Dec 1995 09:01:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Elizabethan-Jacobean drama texts Are there any good, new Elizabethan-Jacobean drama anthologies available in the U.S? I usually use either Fraser and Rabkin's 2-vol *Drama of the English Renaissance* (Macmillan) or Brooke and Paradise's *English Drama, 1580-1642* (Heath) and supplement them with single-volume versions of one or two plays. But I remember, some years ago, responding to a questionnaire from a publisher (Norton?) who said they were planning a new anthology. I don't know if anything ever came of that. Also, a good one-volume edition of Sidney's *Apology*? Thanks in advance. Jim Swan SUNY/Buffalo (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carole L. Hamilton Date: Friday, 15 Dec 1995 14:11:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Screenplays of *Hamlet* Hello Shakespeareans: Does anyone know where I can get copies of the screenplays of Hamlet used in the films with Laurence Olivier (Olivier's screenplay) and with Mel Gibson (Dyson Lovell's screenplay)? I want to use them in a high school class, and I will use only Act III scene 4, Hamlet confronting Gertrude in her room. The University of Virgina library (closest to me) does not have either. Any leads will be appreciated. Carole Hamilton clh6w@virginia.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Saturday, 16 Dec 1995 13:29:10 +0100 Subject: Irvin Matus Can someone supply a current address for Irvin Matus? --Don Foster (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephan Handzsuj Date: Friday, 5 Jan 96 14:23:48 +0100 Subject: Questions in the Tragedies Dear SHAKeSpeareans, Presently I am writing a PH.D. dissertation about questions in the 'great' tragedies of Shakespeare at the Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany. The analysis is primarily based on linguistic research about questions, and, as you probably know, there is very much you can find out about dramatic texts when you take linguistic theories and apply them to the plays. However there has been very little literary criticism about this subject at least concerning Shakespeare's plays. I have found only the following books and articles: - Goldberg, S.L.: "Answering and Questioning", in: S.L. Goldberg: An Essay on King Lear. London, 1973. - Hallett, Charles A.: Staging Shakespeare's Dramatic Question: Intensifying Techniques in Act Two of King Lear", in Shakespeare Bulletin, 9, iii (1991), S. 5-12. - Levin, Harry: The Question of Hamlet. New York, 1959. - Thomas Moisan: "Repetition and Interrogation in Othello : What needs this iterance?" or, "Can anything be made of this?", in: Othello. New Perspectives. Ed. by Virginia Mason Vaughan and Kent Cartwright. Rutherford, 1991, S. 48-73. - Nowottny, Winifred M.T.: "Lear's Questions", in: Aspects of King Lear. Ed. by Kenneth Muir and Stanley Wells. Cambridge, 1982. s. 35-42. - Wikberg, Kay: Yes-No Questions and Answers in Shakespeare's Plays. A Study in Text Linguistics. Abo, 1975. (Acta Academiae Abonensis, Ser. A Humaniora, Vol. 51, Nr. 1) So I would like to ask you SHAKeSpereans if you know anything about further criticism concerning this subject. You can also send an e-mail to >Stephan.Handzsuj@rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de<. Additionly I would be very interested in comments and ideas about questions in Shakespears tragedies. Thank you very much in advance. Yours Stephan Handzsuj Ruhr-University Bochum ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 15:53:45 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0008 Re: *Shakespeare on Silent Film* Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0008. Friday, 5 January 1996. From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Friday, 5 Jan 1996 00:33:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0003 Voice-over Hamlet? This email is for Jim Schaefer. Regarding silent film Shakespeare, the magnum opus on this topic is Robert Hamilton Ball's SHAKESPEARE ON SILENT FILM, a book well worth a look. There was, unsuprisingly I guess given the perennial use of Shakespeare to class up any new medium (see the spate of recent bardocentric CD-ROMs), a HUGE number of silent film Shakespeare's, most of which have received little attention since teh advent of talkies. If you want to own a copy of this book, let me know as I've seen some around recently. Yours sincerely, Bradley Berens U.C. Berkeley ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 15:56:25 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0009 New Discovery Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0009. Friday, 5 January 1996. From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Friday, 5 Jan 1996 13:21:54 -0500 Subject: New Discovery To inaugurate the move to Bowie State, I thought I'd take the opportunity to announce an important new discovery I recently made in our field while doing some research in England. Please address comments to me personally rather than to this list, unless they would interest us all. Recently, among the uncalendared MSS in the collection of the late Marquis of Blattant, I came across the following interesting account. It appears to be a report from the Venetian Ambassador at the court of King James 1 to the Council of Ten at Venice. The late Marquis was, as you will know, a keen snapper-up of unconsidered trayfuls, and may have acquired this during one of his many Italian sojourns, where he was the special friend of the old Duca dei Angoli Oscuri, the gossip-merchant and notorious "fence." In the new MS, Ambassador Correr seems to be reporting on a previously unknown masque, given during the negotiations for the Spanish Marriage of Prince Charles. By an unknown author, clearly of strong Puritan sensitivities, it apparently is a kind of answer to the wedding masques, such as "Hymenaei," of earlier in the reign, and purports to examine what might be called "The Miseries of Enforced Marriage." I offer Correr's account here in translation from the Italian. As Correr spoke no English, he gives no indication of text, but his eye for visual detail was always keen. He reports as follows: "I went to the Prince's masque this evening, where, as usual, all was made ready with great expense and endeavour. At the end of the hall was hung a great curtain with a scene from antiquity: Jason telling Medea of his new marriage to Creon's daughter, Medea holding her two sons by the hand. Above was a motto: "Cuckullus non facit monarchum" which I thought very bad Latin. At the loud sound of a mass of very untuneful crumhorns, the curtain fell in a heap and the antimasque rushed in, which consisted of a swarm of "paparazzi" with very bright flashing torches in their hands, surrounding a woman dressed as the virginal DIANA. With a great noise of words and a dance full of a thousand frantic gestures, the antimasquers assailed Diana, but at last she threw them back with the help of a team of sober-clad lawyers. A woman dressed as "The Sun" then sang a song in praise of Diana, while the latter most graciously removed some of her clothes and performed athletic and martial dances for her admirers (one sneaking paparazzo was here driven off again) and then withdrew. Then the whole scene was wonderfully changed to Windsor forest, where was discovered the Prince, arrayed magnificently as HERCULES, beating off a crowd of tiny dwarvish detractors (I had seen this one before some years hence). A man dressed as Fama or "The Times" then made a great (and somewhat lengthy) speech in praise of Hercules, but told of a quarrel he had unto Diana, for that she had stolen the Club wherewith he used to beat down the press of his enemies, much weakening his glory and power over his people. The Prince's followers, a team of Royal Equerries dressed as Scotsmen, entered and performed a fantastical dance with swords (not without danger to the Prince), whereupon there entered also Diana with her lawyers and supporters dressed as the nymphs of London. After several bitter speeches uttered upon either side, a great battle then ensued, in which Hercules and Diana shot arrows at one another from their great bows, while lawyers and Scotsmen skirmished in duels, and the nymphs lamented. All at once, there appeared Hercules' minion, Camilla, who menaced Diana with a terrible scowl. Here the action became most various and remarkable, the air crowded with missiles, epithets and implements. By marvellous design, a sort of thick dust began to obscure the whole, the Sun set fire to the Times, nymphs tore their hair and leapt upon Scots, the paparazzi returned in a mass, and a great noise of dogs and citizens began lewdly to brabble without. Whereupon, most precipitately, the Monarch of this Realm commanded the whole show to be brought unto a sudden end, and withdrew in a high displeasure, leaving Hercules and Diana crestfallen and dishevelled among the ruins." Cheers, Tom ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 1996 15:05:34 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0010 Files on Fileserver Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0010. Saturday, 6 January 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Saturday, Janury 6, 1996 Subject: Files on Fileserver Dear SHAKSPEReans, As I mentioned yesterday, UNIX LISTSERV has a complete different Fileserver structure than VM (mainframe) LISTSERV. Several have written and I went back to the documentation to discover that I left out an entry for every file on the Fileserver so that members other than myself can "GET" files. I will have to re-edit completely the UNIX filelist file before the files will be retreivable. Try again in a day or two if you want to order files. This, of course, especially applies to new members and those who have been away for a while with the NOMAIL option. For you I would suggest sending the list below to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu -- but again please give me a few days: GET LISTSERV COMMANDS GET SHAKSPER FILES GET SHAKSPER MEMBERS GET SHAKSPER ANNOUNCE GET SHAKSPER LOG9512B GET SHAKSPER LOG9512C GET SHAKSPER LOG9601A ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 1996 17:33:43 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0011 Files on Fileserver Now Available Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0011. Saturday, 6 January 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Saturday, Janury 6, 1996 Subject: Files on Fileserver Now Available Dear SHAKSPEReans, Well, I seemed to have fixed the problem with the SHAKSPER Fileserver. As it turns out, the task was not as time consuming as I had expected -- I originally did not include the information for anyone other than myself to access the files. Once again, I would encourage all new members and those who have been away for a while with the NOMAIL option to request the files below by sending the list below to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu: GET LISTSERV COMMANDS GET SHAKSPER FILES GET SHAKSPER MEMBERS GET SHAKSPER ANNOUNCE GET SHAKSPER LOG9512B GET SHAKSPER LOG9512C GET SHAKSPER LOG9601A It will, however, still take me some time to re-write the SHAKSPER GUIDE; when I finish, I'll make an announcement. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 1996 17:42:56 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0012 Humanitarian Assistance Requested Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0012. Saturday, 6 January 1996. From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Thursday, 14 Dec 1995 11:22:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Humanitarian Assistance Requested Dear List members This has nothing to do with our LIST, but I urge you to help Lori Helene Berenson, a 26-year old freelance journalist who has been following human rights issues in Peru. Since 30 November, she has been held in prison there, facing charges of terroism, which she calls "preposterous." Her mother, a friend and colleague, is a professor of physics at Nassau Community College; her father is a professor of statistics at Baruch College. At this moment, they are both in Peru, where Lori is being held without formal charges, without legal aid, and in solitary confinement, undergoing "questioning." Please contact members of congress, the state department, and anyone else you can think of. Circulate petitions that urge the person petitioned to take an ACTIVE role to free Lori Berenson. Make phone calls and send faxes. In New York State, you could contact Senators Moynihan (FAX 212-564-5066) and D'Amato (FAX 202-224-5871). Thank you for your help. Bernice W. Kliman 516-671-1301 (phone) 516-572-8134 (fax) KlimanB@SNYFARVA.bitnet [Editor's Note: Bernice has also informed me of the following: The NYT had a piece about Lori in today's paper, with the title "Peru Criticized on New Yorker's Trial." Not only is Lori Berenson presumed guilty until she can prove her innocence. She is given no opportunity to prove her innocence. The case should be turned over from the military court, where Lori is judged by hooded men without experience with the law, without being able o gather evidence in her favor, to the civilian court, the Common Court, as they call it. The situation is dire. She was kept in solitary for over a month, interrogated repeatedly, and now is facing incarceration in a rural prison where her parents, if they can make their way there, will be able to see her only once a month for 1/2 hour. The military confiscated the tapes Lori was taking of indigenous music. She is a student of anthropology and studies stories and music. She has traveled widely all over South America collecting these materials. So please do whatever you can. Currently, Lori's parents are asking that people write the President: e-mail president@whitehouse.gov or phone him at 202-456-1414 Contact Assistant Secretary of State Alexander Watson phone 202-647-5780 FAX 202-647-0791 Call your own rep in Congress. You can reach these peope through the Congressional switchboard, 202-225-3121. Call Senators at 202-224-3121.] ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 1996 17:50:44 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0013 Announcing an Interdisciplinary Conference Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0013. Saturday, 6 January 1996. From: Helen Ostovich Date: Friday, 5 Jan 1996 16:57:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Announcing an Interdisciplinary Conference This conference may be of interest to members. Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L9 (905) 525-9140 x24496=09=09 ******************************************************************************* ANNOUNCING THE MIDDLE AGES IN CONTEMPORARY POPULAR CULTURE An Interdisciplinary Conference McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada March 29-31, 1996 Keynote Speaker: Derrick de Kerckhove Director of the McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology University of Toronto This conference will explore the general theme of "The Middle Ages in Contemporary Popular Culture." This theme is intended to be as open-ended as possible and will be approached from many directions. Topics include, but are not limited to: *Marketing the Middle Ages in music (Gregorian chant, Hildegard of Bingen), novels, movies,TV series, video games and CD-ROM *New Millenarianisms, Satanic cults and witchcraft *The Middle Ages in nationalist ideologies *The Middle Ages as an attraction for tourists: visits to archeological sites, medieval fairs, feasts and pageants. A number of special cultural events are also planned, including musical performances, films, a display of books, videos and interactive multimedia products. To register or receive further information, please contact: Madeleine Jeay Susan Fast Department of French School of Art, Drama and Music McMaster University McMaster University Hamilton, On. Canada L8S 4M2 Hamilton, On. Canada L8S 4M2 Tel: (905) 525-9140 ext. 2375 Tel: (905) 525-9140 ext. 23670 e-mail: jeaymad@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca e-mail:fastfs@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca FAX: (905) 577-6930 http:\\www.mcmaster.ca Presented by the McMaster Working Group on the Middle Ages and Renaissance ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 1996 17:57:27 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0014 Sidney's Apology Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0014. Saturday, 6 January 1996. (1) From: Robert Montgomery Date: Friday, 5 Jan 96 18:29:49 PDT Subj: RE: SHK 7.0007 Qs: Anthologies (2) From: Peter C. Herman > Date: Friday, 5 Jan 96 18:29:49 PDT Subject: RE: SHK 7.0007 Qs: Anthologies In reply to Jim Swan, the best single volume edition of Sidney's Apology used to be that of Geoffrey Shepherd, published by NelsonI have a vague recollection that there was a paper reprint, but the original date of publication was 1965, so it may no longer be in print. I'm not in a position to check that immediately. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter C. Herman > Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0015 Re: Screenplays; Voice-Over; Ball's Book Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0015. Saturday, 6 January 1996. (1) From: Fiona C. Quick Date: Friday, 5 Jan 96 21:06:43 -0600 Subj: Re: Hamlet Screenplays (2) From: Porter Jamison Date: Saturday, 6 Jan 1996 07:25:43 -0800 Subj: Re: Voice-over Hamlet? (3) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Saturday, 6 Jan 1996 11:32:44 -0800 (PST) Subj: Robert Hamilton Ball's Book on Silent Film Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fiona C. Quick Date: Friday, 5 Jan 96 21:06:43 -0600 Subject: Re: Hamlet Screenplays I would suggest the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences Library. You would most likely not be able to obtain a copy from them, but they would be the best and most accurate resource for locating copies. I believe there are also several web sites where you can search numerous screenplays. I will pass the message on to a film studies academic I know of and see if I can get a more detailed response for you. Fiona C. Quick University of Minnesota School of Journalism and Mass Communication & Department of Speech Communication (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Porter Jamison Date: Saturday, 6 Jan 1996 07:25:43 -0800 Subject: Re: Voice-over Hamlet? >On December 11, Michael Friedman wrote: > >> I started to wonder about *To be or not to be*. If, as it >> has been asserted, most audiences know it so well by now that >> they hardly pay attention to the words, does the actor even >> need to speak the lines? What would happen if he just >> thought them? Not with a voice-over, but silently, in his >> own head, accompanied by only those gestures that a person, >> lost in agitated thought, might make. > >Didn't Mel Gibson do just this in his film version of Hamlet? No, he didn't. Zefferelli played the scene in the family crypt around the tomb of King Hamlet, transposing it and the "nunnery" scene and placing them both before the arrival of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. The soliloquy was spoken aloud, though... As for M. Friedman's original idea, I disagree. Like most lovers of Shakespeare, I have heard this soliloquy so many times that it is locked in my memory. However, I still *listen* to it, every time, and it always speaks to me-- and I suspect that's true of most people. While it's an interesting concept, and it might be intriguing to see it done this way *once*, I suspect most of us would be taken out of the play and into the _game_ of matching the actor's facial expressions to what we think Shakespeare's underlying words are-- hardly the place Shakespeare would want his audience during this particular soliloquy. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Saturday, 6 Jan 1996 11:32:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Robert Hamilton Ball's Book on Silent Film Shakespeare Dear Shakespeareans amd SHAKSPERIANS, There has been some slight interest in Robert Hamilton Ball's book SHAKESPEARE ON SILENT FILM: A STRANGE EVENTFUL HISTORY, so I thought I'd provide both a full citation as well as places where it might be available. There was an American and a British edition: Ball, Robert Hamilton, 1902- Shakespeare on silent film; a strange eventful history. New York, Theater Arts Books 1968. Ball, Robert Hamilton, 1902- Shakespeare on silent film: a strange eventful history. London, Allen & Unwin, 1968. I got my copy at Larry Edmunds Cinema and Theater Books in Hollywood years ago, and they had a stack of copies. #(213) 463-3273. Also worth checking: Moe's in Berkeley #(510) 849-2087 Powell's in Portland, OR #(800) 878-7323 Powell's in Chicago #(312) 955-7780 AND, the indefatiguable Richard Stoddard Performing Arts Books in NY, NY #(212) 645-9576. If none of these pan out, let me know privately and I'll keep an eye out in my travels. I've seen this book in the little used bookstores in Ashland at the festival, but I don't remember any of the names at the moment. Best of luck to the hunters! Sincerely yours, Bradley Berens U.C. Berkeley claudius@garnet.berkeley.edu========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 15:23:40 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0016 New on the SHAKSPER FileServer: AM_REP TEMPEST Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0016. Sunday, 7 January 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Sunday, January 7, 1996 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER FileServer: AM_REP TEMPEST As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve G. L. Horton's "Review of the American Repertory Theatre's *Tempest*" (AM_REP TEMPEST) from the SHAKSPER Fileserver. To retrieve this review, send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET AM_REP.TEMPEST" Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, please contact the editor, or . G. L. Horton notes, "No one had yet commented on it when SHAKSPER went dark: I'd be interested to hear other people's impressions. My friends here who saw it differed wildly in their opinions of its merit." ******************************************************************************* THE TEMPEST By William Shakespeare Directed by Ron Daniels Starring Paul Freeman At the American Repertory Theatre Reviewed by G.L. Horton This seems to be the year for ambitious new directorial interpretations of "The Tempest". Director Ron Daniels says in his American Repertory Theatre production notes that he is staging "The Tempest" as an encounter between Old World "nurture" or "culture" and New World "nature", from which encounter the European exiles will return to their homeland "enriched by a greater understanding of themselves". But self-understanding, here, turns out to be a counsel of despair. This "Tempest" is a tale of disillusion, wherein both old and new world are drained of human warmth. Friendship, kinship, romance, degree and courtesy, learning and wit, poetry itself -- all are but phantasims, brave and diverting while new, but to the eye of the poet's hard-won wisdom mere masks for lust and domination. Power is so corrupting that even the power of art must be abjured, and the poet-magician resign himself to a state where "every third thought shall be my grave". The production's design elements and acting style cooperate in this bleak vision. John Conklin's stark set is a sun-baked beach, on which a segment of some gigantic marble construction arches up into the vivid blue sky "as if a huge instrument for the study of astronomy has landed violently." All signs of the Pastoral are banished from this version of Nature. There are no sheltering caves, no green and leafy bowers, no blameless rural joys. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 15:27:02 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0017 Request for Essays for the SHAKSPER Fileserver Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0017. Sunday, 7 January 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Sunday, January 7, 1996 Subject: Request for Essays for the SHAKSPER Fileserver Dear SHAKSPEReans, Yesterday, G. L. Horton sent me a long review she wrote for *AisleSay* of the American Repertory Theatre's *Tempest*; this occasion provides me the perfect opportunity to make a plea to the membership I had intended to make anyway. In the past few days, you have heard a lot about the SHAKSPER Fileserver. Let me explain a bit more about it. LISTSERV's main purpose is to distribute mail to groups of people; however, these mail messages can be stored in logs -- notebooks, organized in our case weekly. These notebooks then can be retrieved by members of a list. (As I mentioned, UNIX does not currently support the DATABASE FUNCTION, which allows members to search these notebooks by keywords; however, L-Soft intends to include this function in the next version of LISTSERV, due at the end of 1996.) In any case, these logs are available on what is called a Fileserver. To retrieve a log, members send a command like "GET SHAKSPER LOG9601A" to the LISTSERV address -- LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu. Having this capacity means that other files can be made available in the same manner. In fact, when you first inquired about membership in SHAKSPER, you received a "how to subscribe" letter that encouraged you to submit a recent essay for inclusion on the SHAKSPER Fileserver. With the MLA just passed and the ISA approaching, I would like to ask members to consider sharing their papers with other members by having them available through the Fileserver. All copyright is presumed to reside solely with you, the author, and will remain there. Published articles are also welcome, but you should obtain prior permission from your publisher for them. Placing an essay for an up-coming meeting enables you to obtain responses from other SHAKSPEReans and to share your work with them as "electronic auditors." Placing essays that have already been presented or published serves as another avenue to disseminate your ideas. Such contributions should be in ASCII text form, with fewer than 70 characters per line, and with footnotes/endnotes in brackets at the appropriate location in the text. Please consult the SHAKSPER FILES file to find out what scholarly papers are currently available, and please do consider submitting something of your own. I should add that these files are ONLY retrievable by members of SHAKSPER and that you should include any appropriate statement you would like about further use or distribution -- i.e., "This paper is not to be reproduced or distributed in any form without the express permission of the author." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 13:49:02 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0018 Re: Development of Individualism Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0018. Monday, 8 January 1996. (1) From: David Reed Date: Sunday, 7 Jan 1996 12:14:51 -0800 Subj: SHK 7.0002 Re: Development of Individualism (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Monday, 8 Jan 1996 09:17:40 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Development of Individualism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Reed Date: Sunday, 7 Jan 1996 12:14:51 -0800 Subject: SHK 7.0002 Re: Development of Individualism In response to Jesus Cora You probably have already come across Meredith Anne Skura's "Shakespeare the Actor and the Purposes of Playing", but if you havn't, this might prove interesting. A review of it is printed in Shakespeare Quarterly 46:3 by Coppelia Kahn. Also, I am interested in your comment that "soliloquies "must need" reflect the interest in self-consciousness and inner-life of individuals that developed in early modern England." It may also be interesting to think about the way in which Soliloquies (and like theatrical conventions) served to create that interest and instruct it in its form(ul)ation. Yours, d.reed (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Monday, 8 Jan 1996 09:17:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Development of Individualism Jesus et al: Bill Godshalk's questioning of the "rise" of self-awareness in renaissance times is thought provoking. It seems to me that the awareness of the self as a being separate from the matrix of one's community is a state of mind that arises with the rise of what we call "civilization". Rural, agrarian communities depend on the unique contributions of their members for survival, thus a man or woman will function as a necessary organ (eyes, hands, legs) of the body politic, and will take their identity as much from that as from their own ideosyncratic persona. As a society becomes more complex, more mechanized, with more individuals to draw from for increasingly specialized functions, individuals are forced to find their value in their uniqueness. John, son of Andrew, or John Who Lives By the River are no longer sufficient identification when the community gets larger than a certain size or so mobile that members change. Today we are not only identified by a system of naming that came into use (more or less) during the renaissance and rise of the middle class, but also by our social security number. Thus we will find self-identification, self-consciousness, self-awareness, from ancient times to now, in communities that were highly "civilized". The middle ages in Europe saw a loss of "civilization", a return to a more rural/agrarian lifestyle, and thus less self-identification. The Church had a lot to do with this in my view; in its efforts to eliminate "worldliness" it gave its members new names, nuns took the names of male saints, and v.v.. Works were done for the glory of God. Signing one's name would be vanity. Etc. This is a large and interesting subject which connects with themes of modern existential loneliness. It seems clear to me that Shakespeare was expressing an early version of this loneliness in his sililoques, which seem to me clearly to be meant as an "aside" by the protagonist to himself, overheard by the audience in the same way that an aside would be overheard if spoken to another character. The protagonist no longer has God to consult with, nor any human close enough to understand. He is alone. A marvelous book on the subject of modern existential loneliness is Philip Slater's "The Pursuit of Loneliness," an inspired insight into the psychological mechanisms of modern American culture. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 14:00:31 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0019 Qs: *Hamlet*; University Wits; Handfasting Illustrations Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0019. Monday, 8 January 1996. (1) From: John Lee Date: Sunday, 7 Jan 1996 13:52:25 GMT Subj: [ *Hamlet* Question] (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Monday, 8 Jan 1996 08:45:52 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: University Wits? (3) From: Michael Friedman Date: Monday, 08 Jan 1996 13:40:43 -0500 (EST) Subj: Handfasting Illustrations (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Lee Date: Sunday, 7 Jan 1996 13:52:25 GMT Subject: [ *Hamlet* Question] Dear SHAKSPERians, Some years ago I read and noted the following comment of a critic reflecting on the proliferation of interpretations of Hamlet's actions. He suggested that it was time to stop speculating on whether the Prince was mad, and proposed another question: 'Are the Comentators on Hamlet Really Mad, Or Only Pretending to be?' Unfortunately I didn't note down the author and work, and now I need to provide a reference for the phrase. Can anyone help? In hope, John Lee (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Monday, 8 Jan 1996 08:45:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: University Wits? Does anyone know of a list that would include scholars involved in research into the works and biographies of the University Wits, specifically Robert Greene, though Lodge, Peele, Kyd, Nashe, etc., are of interest as well? You can reply to me directly, if you will. Thanks. Stephanie Hughes (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Monday, 08 Jan 1996 13:40:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Handfasting Illustrations I wonder if anyone could help me. I'm currently serving as dramaturg for our University production of *Measure For Measure*, and I was asked by the director to come up with an Elizabethan or Jacobean era drawing of a handfasting or betrothal ceremony. Despite consulting several sources I considered promising, I haven't been able to come up with anything. Could anyone out there suggest a source for such an illustration? Michael Friedman University of Scranton ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 14:05:04 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0020 Re: McKellen's R3; Matus Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0020. Monday, 8 January 1996. (1) From: Laura Blanchard Date: Saturday, 6 Jan 1996 23:23:00 -0500 Subj: McKellen's R3 (2) From: Christine R. Gray Date: Monday, 8 Jan 1996 13:19:20 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0007 Qs: Matus (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Blanchard Date: Saturday, 6 Jan 1996 23:23:00 -0500 Subject: McKellen's R3 The kind folks at Mayfair Entertainment International responded generously to my request for information on the film to put on the Society's Web site, so I have a number of photographs, cast list, production notes and interview with Sir Ian McKellen mounted there. For those of you who may be interested, the URL is http://www.webcom.com/blanchrd/mckellen/film/homepage.html Our server has had some sporadic problems with slow loading recently, so I apologize in advance if you have difficulty reaching the site. I understand the film will open January 19 here in Philadelphia; of course, it has been playing in New York since late last month. It's an interesting film -- I enjoyed it. Regards, Laura Blanchard Richard III Society, American Branch (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine R. Gray Date: Monday, 8 Jan 1996 13:19:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0007 Qs: Matus The best way to reach Irv Matus is probably through the Folger. More than likely he has a mailbox there. christine gray ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 14:36:48 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0021 Re: SHK 6.0956 Book Announcement: Trial Posting Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0021. Monday, 8 January 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Monday, January 8, 1996 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0956 Book Announcement: Trial Posting On Saturday, December 9, 1996, I sent out a digest labeled "Book Announcement: Trial Posting" and wrote >[SHAKSPEReans: I am posting the following to determine, in part, how the >membership feels about the inclusion of Book Announcement postings. I will >consider ALL responses to this request to be personal mail to me; I will >reflect upon those responses; and then I will announce whether or not such >postings will appear in the future. -- Hardy M. Cook, Editor] I received many responses -- both pro and con -- and I have reflected and decided to allow book announcement with the following stipulations suggested to me by those who responded. All such annoucements 1) will be identified in the subject line as Book Announcement(s): NAME OF BOOK(S), 2) should be brief, informative, descriptive, Shakespeare-related, and recently published, 3) should include title, publisher, date, subject, 4) should come from authors NOT publishers, 5) should NOT be promotional, and 6) will be grouped together when possible and only be announced on an irregular basis. With these stipulations, book announcements are now acceptable. Let me conclude by adding that one respondent hoped that book announcements might encourage book reviews, I also encourage book reviews but will be vigilant about "hidden agendas." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 13:59:19 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0022 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: HIGH_LOW CULTURE Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0022. Tuesday, 9 January 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, January 9, 1996 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: HIGH_LOW CULTURE As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve Harry Hill's "The Mixture of "High" and "Low" Culture in Hamlet I,i: a Close Reading" (HIGH_LOW CULTURE) from the SHAKSPER Fileserver. This paper was delivered at Popular Culture Association Meeting in Syracuse, NY, on November 2nd 1995 To retrieve "The Mixture of "High" and "Low" Culture in Hamlet I,i: a Close Reading," send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET HIGH_LOW CULTURE". Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, please contact the editor at or . ******************************************************************************* The Mixture of "High" and "Low" Culture in Hamlet I,i: a Close Reading It was Oscar Wilde who best said that the people have to be brought up to the level of art. As with many of his utterances, he probably had Shakespeare in mind. Clearly, Shakespeare's perennial success as a popular playwright has to do with his mastery of levels and his ability to inveigle the common spectator into his worlds, and then, in a sense that I shall demonstrate, up to his people's reactions to those worlds. This paper is based on the assumption that popular culture is not folk culture but low culture elevated to high. And in Shakespeare's case it is mostly his negative capability, his refusal to take political positions or to write in either the overwrought or too plain styles of most of his contemporaries that makes and keeps his art popular. Mostly, it is his negative capability in the sense of empathy that does this. His hearing the way people speak, and his feeling the way they think..which he can reproduce in metaphor and verbal texture. The line that famously opens Hamlet with a question is more than that. It is a contraction, "Who's there?", that may also be seen to introduce stylistically and therefore tonally the earthbound ordinariness of its characters, the sentries of Elsinore, before elevating their perceptions to a more intellectually ethereal level. To this latter level the characters are forced in this scene by their reactions to events. I use "high and low culture" as ways of describing the modes and levels of speech, which are of course outward and visible emblems of inner states. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 14:11:57 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0023 Re: Apology; Handfasting; Ham. Quotation; Individualism Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0023. Tuesday, 9 January 1996. (1) From: J. H. Sawday Date: Monday, 8 Jan 1996 17:55:04 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0014 Sidney's Apology (2) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Monday, 8 Jan 1996 17:07:12 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0019 Qs: Handfasting Illustrations (3) From: Michele Crescenzo Date: Monday, 8 Jan 96 17:11:03 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0019 Qs: *Hamlet* (4) From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Monday, 8 Jan 1996 17:51:49 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0018 Re: Development of Individualism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: J. H. Sawday Date: Monday, 8 Jan 1996 17:55:04 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0014 Sidney's Apology Geoffrey Shepherd's ed. of Sidney's _Apology for Poetry_ is (according to GBIP) still in print: ISBN 0 7190 0516 7 (Manchester University Press, 1964) price L.9.99. Shepherd's introductory essay, though dated, is still a comprehensive account not only of the genesis of the _Apology_ but of the text's position within the complex rhetorical debates Sidney was enagaged in. Certainly, students find it helpful. I also note that there is an ed. of the _Apology_ published in London by Sangam (1986), originally published in Hyderabad by Orient Longman (1975) edited by Visvanath Chatterjee. ISBN: 0 86131 662 2. At L. 2.95, this looks like remarkably good value. Jonathan Sawday Department of English, University of Southampton, (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Monday, 8 Jan 1996 17:07:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0019 Qs: Handfasting Illustrations To Michael Friedman, I don't know about illustrations of handfasting, but for a sense of the staging of it, perhaps you should look at the "promise" scene between the incestuous sister and brother in 'TIS PITY SHE'S A WHORE. But why would you need a picture? There's no handfast scene on stage in MEAS, is there? Are you thinking of introducing one? Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L9 (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michele Crescenzo Date: Monday, 8 Jan 96 17:11:03 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0019 Qs: *Hamlet* On 7 Jan 96, John Lee wrote: >Some years ago I read and noted the following comment of a critic reflecting on >the proliferation of interpretations of Hamlet's actions. He suggested that it >was time to stop speculating on whether the Prince was mad, and proposed >another question: 'Are the Comentators on Hamlet Really Mad, Or Only Pretending >to be?' > >Unfortunately I didn't note down the author and work, and now I need to provide >a reference for the phrase. Can anyone help? The author of this is Oscar Wilde, and thanks for reminding me of it: it's one of my favorites. Wilde once remarked to his friend Robert Ross, "My next Shakespeare book will be a discussion as to whether the commentators on _Hamlet_ are mad or only pretending to be." This info is from Richard Ellmann's biography, _Oscar Wilde_ (299). Michele Crescenzo crscnzo@andromeda.rutgers.edu Rutgers University-Newark (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Monday, 8 Jan 1996 17:51:49 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0018 Re: Development of Individualism I think it might help a bit here to attempt to distinguish between "individuality" as fact and as value (the terms are provisional). All creatures from the level of, say, fish, experience themselves as in important ways separate from other creatures, even if it is only on the level of the competition for food or the attempt to escape mortal peril. In times of acute starvation mothers will even abandon (or eat) their young. It's hard to imagine, in a Darwinian universe, any other evolutionarily possible outcome than individualism at this level. So I'm with Bill Godshalk here. It is a not unreasonable inference that complex individual biological organs like human brains will have the capacity and tendency to encode experience as fact in ways that contribute to the survival of the individual, though this does not mean that such a complex organ could not also over-ride such an inherent tendency in particular cases. The recognition of the SEPARATE fate of individuals in respect at least of death is an important, but not very high-level one. And accordingly, our relation to our bodies, our sense-perceptions, and perhaps even our emotions, tends to be predicated on our experience of them as individual. I can move my hand by willing it. You cannot move my hand by willing it. (Stephanie Hughes notwithstanding to the contrary, it is just not true that individuality is the product of agricultural community or "civilization". Hunter-gatherer cultures such as Australian aboriginal tribes have highly complex and sophisticated mechanisms for identifying individuals and for assigning to them quite specific individual "bits" of a common culture, such that each member of a tribe will have his or her own peculiar "dreaming" -- a kind of personal mythography. That all the bits are needed to make the culture work does not imply that there is no value attributed to the individual in that culture.) It is, however, a different thing to speak of the promotion of "individuality" from fact to value, from an inalienable (except under extreme conditions, perhaps such as hypnosis, torture and so forth, conditions that Althusserian Marxism takes as normal for everyone but Marxist theoreticians) aspect of experience, to a cultural institution with specific investments of ideological and discursive effort. At the latter level, it's a whole new ballgame. I note for the current argument that "even" medieval culture, which so many people these days seem to believe was a kind of anonymous and anodyne period in which people knew their place and did as they were ideologically instructed, had a powerful overarching commitment to the idea of the "individual soul" which had certain prerogatives, notably ones _not_ granted to, say, slaves in antiquity. There is all the difference in the world between noting that MSS were not (often) personally signed or notated by their writers, and the claim that these writers "did not experience themselves as individuals." But actual history always screws up theory's horoscopes. Cheers, This node of ideological space-time-discourse intersections. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 14:14:09 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0024 MLA Panel CFP: Personation in 16th-C Drama Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0024. Tuesday, 9 January 1996. From: R. G. Siemens Date: Monday, 8 Jan 1996 17:19:29 -0800 Subject: MLA Panel CFP: Personation in 16th-C Drama _The Performance of Personation in 16th-Century Drama_. (A panel at the 1996 MLA Convention in Washington.) The representation of Tudor historical figures in 16th-century English Drama: politics of performance, archival studies, biography, historical research, theoretical issues. 1-page proposals by 31 March; Ray Siemens or Patricia Badir, English Department, University of British Columbia, 397-1873 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada. V6T 1Z1; or by e-mail to . [This CFP is from the MLA Newletter (Fall 1995, page 11). This message has been crossposted; please excuse duplication.] ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 15:31:59 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0025 Problems with @ws.BowieState.edu Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0025. Wednesday, 10 January 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, January 10, 1996 Subject: Problems with @ws.BowieState.edu Dear SHAKSPERean, Some of you have reported that you have had problems with either the list address -- SHAKSPER@ws.BowieState.edu -- or the LISTSERV address -- LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu. There is one bug in SENDMAIL that we were going to fix on Monday. It affects some addresses -- my own included. Of course, on Saturday, it started to snow and the Washington, DC, area has been closed down since. As soon as the System Manager can get in, he'll fix the problem in about an hour or so. Until then, you can use the following SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu (or send directly to me: HMCook@boe00.minc.umd.edu) and LISTSERV@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu. Sorry for any inconvenience. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 10:42:55 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0026 Qs: Cultural Studies; Stylometry Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0026. Thursday, 11 January 1996. (1) From: Kathleen Jo Powell Hannah Date: Tuesday, 9 Jan 1996 14:34:43 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: Cultural Studies Question (2) From: Jim Helfers Date: Wednesday, 10 Jan 1996 21:13:08 -0700 (MST) Subj: Two Questions on Stylometry (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Jo Powell Hannah Date: Tuesday, 9 Jan 1996 14:34:43 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Cultural Studies Question Dear SHAKSPEReans, This is my first post (though I've been lurking for awhile), so I hope I'm doing this right! I want to request titles of books, articles, etc. that are cultural studies of Shakespeare. I'm thinking of material in the vein of Gary Taylor's _Reinventing Shakespeare_. I'd appreciate any ideas. Thanks! Katie Hannah kjphanna@whale.st.usm.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Helfers Date: Wednesday, 10 Jan 1996 21:13:08 -0700 (MST) Subject: Two Questions on Stylometry I am researching two questions which involve the stylometric analysis of texts, particularly Shakespearean ones. With the first, I promise that I am not reopening an old and interdicted controversy; all I want is a reference, if one is available. Does anyone know of a published stylometric study which compares the known works of Edward De Vere with the works of Shakespeare? (I know that there may be problems comparing writings of possibly very different types.) Second (and this is perhaps a personal question to Don Foster, who, I believe, is a member of the list), is there a published description of the construction and structure of the SHAXICON database? I've checked the basic bibliographies and have found his articles which seem to base their conclusions on the use of it, but there is little description in what I've read so far of just what this mysterious entity is. I would have used the DATABASE function to search the SHAKSPER logs, but that's down at the moment; I know that there has been some discussion of SHAXICON on the list previously. I'd wait if the schedule for a presentation I'm giving wasn't so tight. As a related sidenote, I was interested to see that our local paper (Mesa, AZ) decided to run a story on Don Foster's 1995 MLA presentation about the funeral elegy for William Peeter. It's funny how things gradually trickle down; his book _Elegy by W.S. A Study in Attribution_ was published in 1989. Thanks for your help, whoever can. --Jim Helfers Grand Canyon University Phoenix, AZ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 10:49:14 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0027 Re: New Discovery; Thanks; *Hamlet* Screenplay Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0027. Thursday, 11 January 1996. (1) From: Kezia Vanmeter Sproat Date: Tuesday, 9 Jan 1996 20:54:29 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0009 New Discovery (2) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Tuesday, 09 Jan 1996 17:50:37 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Thanks to all re Lori Helene Berenson (3) From: Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer Date: Wednesday, 10 Jan 1996 13:23:52 -0500 Subj: *Hamlet* Screenplay (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kezia Vanmeter Sproat Date: Tuesday, 9 Jan 1996 20:54:29 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0009 New Discovery Terminal optimism allows me to fantasize that Charlie will tire of and renounce Cam, and a brilliant C&D reconciliation reminiscent of Beatrice and Benedick (or Rosaline and Berowne) will follow, the divorce rate in the English-speaking world will plummet, and Newt Gingrich will favor NEH & NEA. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Tuesday, 09 Jan 1996 17:50:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Thanks to all re Lori Helene Berenson Thanks to all who have responded so generously to the plea for Lori Helene Berenson, now about to be sentened. The fight goes on; this will be a longterm effort. Please continue your letters-- the main thing is to get Ms. Berenson out of the military prison and into the civilian court system where she will have something approaching due process. At present, the military can allege anything, and Lori and her lawyer have no way to present her case or to cross-examine witnesses. In the *NY Times* today, she is reported to have said, when put on display to reporters: "I love this country! I love this country! For this error I will spend years in prison. I have been condemend because of my concern for the hunger and misery that exists here. "Nobody here can deny that in Peru there is much injustice, institutionalized violence, rampant murdering of this country's best citizens, and hungry children. If it is a crime to be concerned with the inhuman situation of the majority of the people of this country, I accept my sentence." She spoke in Spanish, and she appeared in handcuffs and shackles. Thanks again for your help, Bernice (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer Date: Wednesday, 10 Jan 1996 13:23:52 -0500 Subject: *Hamlet* Screenplay Carole Hamilton asks for sources for screenplays for the Gibson and Olivier *Hamlet*s. Don't know about the Gibson, but Olivier's is available in paperback as part of the Classic Film Series printed by Lorrimer Publishing, and distributed in the US and Canada, among other places, by Frederick Ungar. Here are the citation and ISBN: Olivier, Laurence. *Henry V.* London: Lorrimer, 1984. ISBN Paper 0 85647 004 X (UK) Best, Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer KirkHK@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 11:02:18 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0029 Anti-Memorial Reconstruction; RNT RII Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0029. Thursday, 11 January 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 10 Jan 1996 14:53:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: [Anti-Memorial Reconstruction] (2) From: Rick Jones Date: Wednesday, 10 Jan 1996 23:09:29 -0600 (CST) Subj: RNT RII (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 10 Jan 1996 14:53:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Anti-Memorial Reconstruction] In *Making Sense of the First Quartos of Shakespeare's *Romeo and Juliet*, *Henry V*, *The Merry Wives of Windsor* and *Hamlet** (Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, 1995), Yashdip Bains argues against the hypothesis of memorial reconstruction, and suggests that these first quartos are the earliest versions of the plays, versions that were later revised by Shakespeare. (Obviously I'm not the author of this book, but I'm hoping that I may draw it to your attention nonetheless.) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Wednesday, 10 Jan 1996 23:09:29 -0600 (CST) Subject: RNT RII I was surprised to read in the new Newsweek that the National Theatre's production of Richard II with Fiona Shaw in the title role is regarded as controversial. I had the opportunity to see it last week, and found it stimulating and engaging... but hardly revolutionary. (Is casting a woman as Richard really that big a deal?) I'd appreciate hearing other SHAKSPEReans' reactions to the production, as well as any details of the "controversy." If anyone is interested in a brief review of the production, I'd be happy to provide one. Cheers, Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 10:57:20 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0028 Re: Wilde: Individualism Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0028. Thursday, 11 January 1996. (1) From: Ron Macdonald Date: Tuesday, 09 Jan 1996 16:25:43 -0500 (EST) Subj: Oscar Wilde on _Hamlet_/Hamlet (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 10 Jan 1996 14:39:40 -0500 (EST) Subj: Individualism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Macdonald Date: Tuesday, 09 Jan 1996 16:25:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Oscar Wilde on _Hamlet_/Hamlet I'm grateful to Michele Crescenzo for identifying Oscar Wilde as the source of the wholly characteristic remark about commentators on _Hamlet_ either being mad or only pretending to be. I'm reminded, in turn, that Wilde pretended to be in no doubt about the status of Hamlet's own madness. He said somewhere in _The Decay of Lying_ that Shakespeare makes Hamlet say that art holds the mirror up to Nature in order to make his madness plain to the dullest observer. --Ron Macdonald (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 10 Jan 1996 14:39:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Individualism think Tom Bishop is certainly correct: the more we consider the amorphous period termed the Middle Ages, the less we are likely to say that individuality was not a value for medieval people. After all, I'm sure they didn't think of themselves as "medieval," and therefore faceless and nameless. Boethius, Dante, Chaucer don't strike me as writers who are unaware of the glories and hazards of individualism. Even Troilus's laughter at the human comedy is individual laughter; it's not some kind of disembodied cosmic rejection of human foolishness. But consider *Beowulf.* Notice that individual distinction is worth dying for in this epic. The characters are not nameless pawns of tribal warfare. The whole idea of bragging is to set yourself off from the lesser warriors. Beowulf does want to die and be forgotten with the rest; he wants to be remembered right here on this earth. And, if you take a glance at medieval history, you will see a chronicle of individualist assertion. The Papacy fights with the Empire; the Christians invade the Holy Land, and so on. The Popes take names and sign bulls. Thomas Aquinas did not remain a nameless Benedictine monk. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 11:05:34 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0030 "A Funeral Elegy" Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0030. Thursday, 11 January 1996. From: Donald W. Foster Date: Wednesday, 10 Jan 1996 10:10:07 +0100 Subject: "A Funeral Elegy" Re: news of W.S[hakespeare], *A Funeral Elegy* (London: Thorpe, 1612). Various SHAKSPERians have written to Hardy Cook or directly to me to inquire about the "new" *Funeral Elegy* that was featured in a Special Session at the MLA and in subsequent press stories. Hardy has asked that I provide some background information, to facilitate discussion of the poem. I won't have room here to present the old and new evidence for a Shakespeare attribution, but I'll hit the main points. Those interested in further information can consult the next issue of SNL (due out shortly). "A Funeral Elegy," by W.S., was written in early February 1612 for a 30-year-old murder victim named William Peter. The poem was first brought to the attention of Shakespeareans in my book, *Elegy by W.S.: A Study in Attribution* (1989). After having studied the Elegy for six years without firmly establishing its authorship, I cautiously presented evidence for and against Shakespeare's hand in the poem. Wishing to avoid the explosive publicity that had attended "Shall I die" (and other such momentany flashes in the Shakespearean pan), I floated my book with as little fanfare as possible. However, in the past few years additional evidence has been discovered by Rick Abrams and by myself, evidence that makes it not only safe but necessary to discuss the Peter elegy as a Shakespeare poem. The Associated Press story that many of you read was condensed from a somewhat longer article in the Chicago *Tribune* (30 December, 1A ff.). As always happens with press stories, important facts were either omitted or misreported. I should begin by crediting the others who spoke about the Elegy at the MLA, for the Session was not, as the A.P. story implied, a one-man show. In presenting the Elegy to the MLA I was joined by Prof. Stephen Booth (Univ. of California at Berkeley), Prof. Richard Abrams (Univ. of Southern Maine), Prof. Lars Engle (Univ. of Tulsa), and Prof. Leo Daugherty (Evergreen State College). Without the valuable contributions of these other scholars, the Session could not have gone forward. The "discovery" of the Elegy is, by now, old news. I began researching its background in 1983, and Prof. Abrams began advancing his attributional argument several years ago. What makes the poem newsworthy is the compelling case that can now be made for a firm attribution. As the SNL article observes, no significant objection has yet been made to the standing evidence of Shakespeare's authorship--and much new evidence of Shakespeare's hand has now come to light. Attribution of the Elegy to Shakespeare has already led on to new biographical discoveries about Shakespeare by Prof. Abrams and myself, but these will have to wait for later presentation. Coming after *The Tempest* (1610/11), the Elegy (1612) is also valedictory. Though many readers have found the poem to be over-long and dull, it is deeply personal, one of the few extant texts in which Shakespeare writes in the first person. Even those scholars who refuse at first to credit Shakespeare with the poem will acknowledge that the Elegy is (in Prof. Abrams's words) "one of our richest repositories of Shakespearean allusion"; though in light of recent developments, most Shakespeareans are likely to conclude (again, with Prof Abrams) that those allusions are in fact to the poet's own work. The Elegy also contains some internal biographical evidence that will prove of interest. For example, the poet refers elliptically to a past scandal, "a taste of knowing shame" (etc.), while offering some hints that this "thankless misconstruction" may possibly be identical with that "vulgar scandal stamped upon my brow" mentioned in the Sonnets. The Elegy is not flashy, nor even easy to read--the verse is highly enjambed and the syntax labored--but it is a fascinating text nonetheless. Here is a representative extract, selected for a forthcoming article in the New York Times: For when the world lies wintered in the storms Of fearful consummation, and lays down Th' unsteady change of his fantastic forms, Expecting ever to be overthrown; 175 When the proud height of much affected sin Shall ripen to a head, and in that pride End in the miseries it did begin And fall amidst the glory of his tide; Then in a book where every work is writ 180 Shall this man's actions be revealed, to show The gainful fruit of well-employed wit, Which paid to heaven the debt that it did owe. Here shall be reckoned up the constant faith, Never untrue, where once he love professed; 185 Which is a miracle in men, one saith, Long sought though rarely found, and he is best Who can make friendship, in those times of change, Admired more for being firm than strange. When those weak houses of our brittle flesh 190 Shall ruined be by death, our grace and strength, Youth, memory and shape that made us fresh Cast down, and utterly decayed at length; When all shall turn to dust from whence we came And we low-leveled in a narrow grave, 195 What can we leave behind us but a name,...? If you go to the Elegy looking for the poetic richness of the Sonnets, you'll be disappointed; but, as Prof. Abrams has shown, the rather plain style of the Elegy does not by itself constitute an objection to Shakespearean authorship, since the poet consciously eschews imaginative excess in a memorial poem that works toward symbolic union with the poet's plain-speaking friend, William Peter. This may not be the sort of verse that most readers would hope to find in a "lost" Shakespeare poem, but I am now persuaded that the Elegy is indeed Shakespeare's, partly for reasons spelled out in my book, and partly for what I take to be a whole web of conclusive new evidence of Shakespearean authorship. Don Foster ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 09:14:41 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0031 Re: Stylometry; Cultural Studies Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0031. Friday, 12 January 1996. (1) From: Donald W. Foster Date: Thursday, 11 Jan 1996 03:55:44 +0100 Subj: Stylometry and Quantitative Stylistic Analysis (2) From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Thursday, 11 Jan 1996 21:18:24 +0100 Subj: Stylometric studies (3) From: Michael Mullin Date: Thursday, 11 Jan 1996 14:56:50 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0026 Qs: Cultural Studies; Stylometry (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald W. Foster Date: Thursday, 11 Jan 1996 03:55:44 +0100 Subject: Stylometry and Quantitative Stylistic Analysis Jim Helfers asks about "stylometric" analysis of texts (i.e., statistical analysis of function-words as an indication of a text's authorship). There has been much silliness published under the name of "stylometry," as well as much solid scholarship. My thanks to Jim for his kind mention of my book, *Elegy by W.S.* (1989)--but in the final chapter of that book I was too dismissive in poking fun at "stylometrics" (on account of the contradictory claims made by its practitioners). In point of fact, much CAN be learned from the frequency of function-words, so long as the evidence is deployed judiciously and in conjunction with other kinds of evidence. Among the best recent scholarship in this vein is the work of Tom Horton, whose focus has been the problem of distinguishing Shakespeare's hand from Fletcher's (but the last I heard, he was having some trouble finding a publisher for his book). Also worth note is Prof. Ward Elliott, who recently put a wrap on the "Shakespeare Authorship Clinic" at Claremont-McKenna College, after several years of research that were funded by the Sloan Foundation. Prof. Elliott has prepared an extensive report on the findings of the Clinic, and he's happy to share it with interested readers. He is a political scientist not a professional Shakespearean, but that should not be held against him; anyone who gives Prof. Elliott a fair hearing will be impressed by what he and his students were able to accomplish in a few short years. Prof. Elliott's interest in the authorship controversy began with the anti-Stratfordians--but his own research has convinced him (and many others who have seen his work) that none of the anti-Statfordians' so-called "claimants" (several dozen of them, Bacon, DeVere, Elizabeth I, Marlowe, et. al.) can have written any of Shakespeare's plays or poems. Anyone interested in the use of function words to distinguish one author's practice from that of another should consult the publications of M.W.A. ("Wilf") Smith. Dr. Smith has issued many useful cautions against the misinterpretion of stylometric evidence. I lack an address for Tom Horton. Dr. Smith and Prof. Elliott may be reached at the following addresses: Dr. M.W.A. Smith Dept. of Information Systems University of Ulster at Jordanstown Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim BT37 OQB NORTH IRELAND e-mail: CBHW23@UK.AC.ULSTER.UPVAX Prof. Ward Elliott Department of Government Pitzer Hall 850 Columbia Avenue Claremont McKenna College Claremont, CA 91711-6420 Jim Helfers asks also about SHAXICON. Sorry for the delay--I'm pedaling as fast as I can, but I have a terribly hard time just keeping up with the mail that I receive concerning SHAXICON. My hope is that SHAXICON will be mounted on the World Wide Web sometime in 1996. To make that plan work, I will need to reformat the entire database for use with Oracle, a state-of the-art system of database-management. (ETC Word Cruncher, DeltaGraph, and Excel, the three software programs on which SHAXICON is now mounted, have limitations that will be avoided when we reconfigure SHAXICON for use with Oracle.) I'll keep you posted. Don Foster (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Thursday, 11 Jan 1996 21:18:24 +0100 Subject: Stylometric studies Regarding Jim Helfers' query about stylometric studies: The Shakespeare Clinic was a project several years ago by Ward Elliot and Robert Valenza of Claremont-McKenna College to compare the works of Shakespeare to the works of various claimants to authorship by various stylistic tests. These included various tests that had been used before in other studies, plus a computer-based method called modal analysis, developed by Valenza (a statistician) based on his work in signal processing. They presented a summary of their results in an article called "A Touchstone for the Bard" in *Computers and the Humanities*, Vol. 25, no. 4 (August 1991), p. 199. None of the claimants' works matched Shakespeare, and Shakespeare's works showed considerable internal consistency. Elliot and Valenza wrote a shorter article concentrating on the Earl of Oxford's claim, which appeared in *Notes and Queries* (December 1991, p. 501) as "Was the Earl of Oxford the True Shakespeare? A Computer-Aided Analysis". Elliot wrote an article for *The Shakespeare Newsletter* (Winter 1990, p. 59) called "Glass Houses and Glass Slippers: The Shakespeare Clinic and its Critics", in which he responded to Oxfordian criticisms of the study (quite effectively, in my opinion). Don Foster posted a description and summary of the SHAXICON project on this list last summer; it was printed in *The Shakespeare Newsletter* this past fall. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Mullin Date: Thursday, 11 Jan 1996 14:56:50 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0026 Qs: Cultural Studies; Stylometry Hi, Katie, I'm engaged in a project titled Our Shakespeares: Shakespeare Across Cultures, a book and CD-ROM to be published by the U of I Press. So far I've done field work in East Asia, Europe, Brazil, and of course North America and Great Britain. I've worked up a bibliography and would be interested to know what your angle is--perhaps we could share resources? Looking forward to hearing from you. Michael Mullin ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 09:20:41 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0032 Re: "A Funeral Elegy" Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0032. Friday, 12 January 1996. (1) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Thursday, 11 Jan 1996 22:04:01 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0030 "A Funeral Elegy" (2) From: Michael Yogev Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 15:12:24 +0200 (WET) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0030 "A Funeral Elegy" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Thursday, 11 Jan 1996 22:04:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0030 "A Funeral Elegy" Hello, Don. Will you be posting the full text of the poem to the SHAKSPER fileserver? I'd be interested in seeing it. Respectfully, Sean Kevin Lawrence. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 15:12:24 +0200 (WET) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0030 "A Funeral Elegy" The Elegy indeed sounds fascinating and worth the effort to consider. Is there a published text now available, or will there be soon? My only quibble with Don Foster's generous and detailed posting is with his characterization of the Elegy as "like _The Tempest_, valedictory." I find _The Tempest_ to be many things, but none of them valedictory. What precisely does this term mean, in this context? To me _The Tempest_ seems a highly Jacobean play without much of the transgressive hijinks and sexual fun--a grim affair altogether. Any comments? Michael Yogev University of Haifa ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 09:26:35 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0033 RNT RII Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0033. Friday, 12 January 1996. (1) From: James Stone Date: Thursday, 11 Jan 1996 18:57:08 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0029 RNT RII (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 11 Jan 1996 20:28:36 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0029 RNT RII (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Stone Date: Thursday, 11 Jan 1996 18:57:08 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0029 RNT RII I agree with Rick Jones that the superb National Theatre production of Richard II hardly deserves to be called "controversial," least of all for casting actress Fiona Shaw in the title role. Hers is not the languishing, lyrically indulgent Richard that we have come to expect from recent interpretations. On a stripped bare stage, so contrary to the lavish production values at the RSC, Shaw and her dressed in black fellows create a minimalist, claustrophobic sense of menace, a world of lawless reservoir dogs. James Stone UC Berkeley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 11 Jan 1996 20:28:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0029 RNT RII Dear Rick Jones-- Please provide a review of the R2 production. thanks. chris stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 09:32:34 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0034 Re: Development of Individualism Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0034. Friday, 12 January 1996. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 11 Jan 1996 20:40:57 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0028 Re: Individualism (2) From: Jesus Cora Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 13:59:23 UTC+0200 Subj: SHK 7.0002 Re: Development of Individualism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 11 Jan 1996 20:40:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0028 Re: Individualism Dear Bill G.--- Though I think I basically agree with you about "individualism" and question the critical industry that likes to locate it around the time of Shakes or Descartes (whether in Eliot, Bloom or Foucault), your characterisation of what TROILUS (Shakes' I assume not Chaucer's) is NOT is a fitting characteristic of PUCK, and MND seems to be in many ways an anti-individualist play (though Theseus, on close reading, seems like a mini-version of Emerson's self-relaince). But the point I wanted to address has to do with BEOWULF. You raise a good point about the heroic attitudes in this piece, but of course there's GRENDEL, who in many ways is INDIVIDUALISM incarnate, in terms of the anti-social being...I like comparing/contrasting BEOWULF to CAEDMON'S HYMN---the two "portals" at the beginning of many anthologies of BRITISH LIT. Not only do we see "lyric" vs. "epic" distinction here, but also it seems that if CAEDMON resembles anybody in BEOWULF, it would have to be GRENDEL, and it is precisely in terms of "individualism" that CAEDMON does so (I'm referring to the STORY of how the hymn was written, which is, for me at least, far more interesting than the hymn itself---but then we don't have the TUNE, which may have been quite infectious....) Chris Stroffolino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 13:59:23 UTC+0200 Subject: SHK 7.0002 Re: Development of Individualism Dear William Godshalk, I appreciate your commentaries. Of course I do not deny that Socrates or any other human being of any time previous to the Renaissance was self-conscious. It is just that I think that individualism and self-consciousness are quite relevant in the period, much more than in any other period. As to drama, with the huge amounts of plays-within-the-plays and other insets, as well as self-reference to the dramatic art in many of the plays, I think that theatrical self-conscious- ness also becomes quite important and may be included in a general drive to and interest in self-consciousness (but, again, I know, we also find theatrical self-consciousness in Terence). I'm quite glad that you point out that self-consciosness is a common trait to human beings. It seems that there are people left who still belief in common human characteristics. After reading so much Shaksper submissions I was beginning to think that the existence of a core of common human experience was the fruit of my imagination. Yours, J. Cora U. de Alcala de Henares (Spain) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 18:30:05 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0035 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: FUNERAL ELEGY Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0035. Friday, 12 January 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, January 12, 1996 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: FUNERAL ELEGY As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve "W[illiam] S[hakespeare], "A Funeral Elegy for Master William Peter" (FUNERAL ELEGY) from the SHAKSPER Fileserver. This normalized text has been edited by Donald Foster. To retrieve "W[illiam] S[hakespeare], "A Funeral Elegy for Master William Peter", send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET FUNERAL ELEGY". Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, please contact the editor at or . ******************************************************************************* W[illiam] S[hakespeare], "A Funeral Elegy for Master William Peter," (London: G.Eld for T.Thorpe, 1612). Normalized text, ed. Donald Foster. TO MASTER JOHN PETER of Bowhay in Devon, Esquire. The love I bore to your brother, and will do to his memory, hath craved from me this last duty of a friend; I am herein but a second to the privilege of truth, who can warrant more in his behalf than I undertook to deliver. Exercise in this kind I will little affect, and am less addicted to, but there must be miracle in that labor which, to witness my remembrance to this departed gentleman, I would not willingly undergo. Yet whatsoever is here done, is done to him and to him only. For whom and whose sake I will not forget to remember any friendly respects to you, or to any of those that have loved him for himself, and himself for his deserts. W. S. A FUNERAL ELEGY. Since time, and his predestinated end, Abridged the circuit of his hopeful days, Whiles both his youth and virtue did intend The good endeavors of deserving praise, 5 What memorable monument can last Whereon to build his never-blemished name But his own worth, wherein his life was graced. . . Sith as that ever he maintained the same? Oblivion in the darkest day to come, 10 When sin shall tread on merit in the dust, Cannot rase out the lamentable tomb Of his short-lived deserts; but still they must, Even in the hearts and memories of men, Claim fit respect, that they, in every limb 15 Remembering what he was, with comfort then May pattern out one truly good, by him. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 18:30:38 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0036 [was 7.006] Re: "A Funeral Elegy" Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0036. Friday, 12 January 1996. (1) From: Don Foster Date: Thursday, 11 Jan 1996 08:43:08 +0100 Subj: Re: Text of "A Funeral Elegy" (2) From: Joe Shea Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 12:20:05 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0032 Re: "A Funeral Elegy" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Thursday, 11 Jan 1996 08:43:08 +0100 Subject: Re: Text of "A Funeral Elegy" Sean Kevin Lawrence has suggested that I post the full text of "A Funeral Elegy" (hereafter "FE"). Since most SHAKSPERians will not have the text at their disposal, this strikes me as an excellent idea. I am therefore posting FE to Hardy. Don't expect to fall in love with FE all at once so that you just *have* to stay home on Saturday nights with Shakespeare's ravishing elegy. As Stephen Booth quipped at the MLA Convention (when asked if he was skeptical of Shakespearean authorship), "I'm not skeptical of its authorship, but I *am* skeptical of the poem." Prof. Rick Abrams's essay on FE is likely to increase critical appreciation for the elegy's self-consciously plain style. But love it or hate it, most readers will find FE to be an interesting if perplexing text, especially in the months ahead as the full case for Shakespearean authorship is laid out in all of its astonishing detail. And now, I have to go shovel snow off my roof before the house collapses. That white oobleck is coming down once again, in buckets: Woe! the wrath of God descendeth on the Empire State. Best, Don Foster (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Shea Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 12:20:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0032 Re: "A Funeral Elegy" The thing I note about "Elegy" is the incomplete, perhaps developing quality of the lines. Of all the ways Shakespeare's discussed paying Heaven its due, the excerpt was perhaps the lamest. I find it hard to believe that someone whose poetry in the Tempest was so magnificent was so much less eloquent in Elegy. But none of his longer poems have much interest except as historical oddities. I have often wondered why he wrote so few of them. Best, Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 19:30:11 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0037 Re: Development of Individualism Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0037. Saturday, 13 January 1996. (1) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 11:19:36 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: Development of Individualism (2) From: Victor Gallerano Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 15:17:56 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0028 Re: Individualism (3) From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 17:16:32 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0028 Re: Individualism (4) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 16:12:48 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0034 Re: Development of Individualism (5) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 19:48:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Individualism (6) From: Terry Ross Date: Saturday, 13 Jan 1996 08:10:13 -0500 (EST) Subj: Thomas Aquinas, O.P. (7) From: David Reed Date: Saturday, 13 Jan 1996 10:59:36 -0800 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0034 Re: Development of Individualism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 11:19:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Development of Individualism If we members of the list want to go anywhere with the idea of individualism I think we'll a little more conceptual clarity about what we're talking about. So far the mere existence of something designated as an "individual" is about all that is being queried; adding an "ism" to the end of the word doesn't get us much farther into the question, even if this "ism" is taken to indicate not only fact but also something like a value. We need to distinguish theories of the self from representations of the self, discourses of the self from technologies of the self, and all of these things from that which concerning someone other than ourselves we can never have direct knowledge, namely the experience of the self. If we look at these various categories under which something like an individual self could be intimated, characterized, invented, or understood, I think we'll find many differences indeed among individuals from one time and place to another. I know that in our own fragmented times many of us -- myself included -- are hungry for commonality and integration. But I don't think we'll find either by gazing back over 3000 years of (Western) history and saying, "By golly, everywhere you look, everything is the SAME." Recent work by Carol Walker Bynum (sorry, but I don't have the title in front of me) shows that there was in fact an idiosyncratic valuation of the self or the person in Christian culture prior to the Renaissance, especially with regard to a doctrine of the individual body -- that body which was held to be in an essential attachment to the immortal soul in life and death alike. We will not find this doctrine, however, in (say) Confucian culture; nor will we find it in Proust, or in most of the songs that Madonna sings about her personae. As for Shakespeare, clearly there are many traces of this doctrine throughout his work; but there are also many expressions of dissatisfaction with it, anxieties about its inadequacy, fears about its slippages in the course of experience ("She is, and is not Cressid," Troilus says), and inspirations about overcoming its limitations by embracing other doctrines, discourses, and technologies. The "Will" of the sonnets is constantly looking for a way to survive what feels to him like the incommensurability of his impending fragmentation. Part of the debate about the history of the individual has to to with the development of structural changes like the invention of domestic privacy, of commodity capitalism, of the secular consumer and the possessive individual -- doctrines, discourses, and technologies which obviously belong to complex histories which obviously make for significant differences in what we make take to be the experience of the self in Shakespeare's time. Part of it also has to do with the development of incommensurabilities. The point about the intensification of individualism in Shakespeare's work put forward by poststructuralists in the last ten years isn't that Shakespeare finds a "self" that no one had found before (that was essentially the argument of people like Auerbach), but rather that Shakespeare loses the stable selves of earlier traditions, and at least symptomatically signals a need for new forms of constructions of the self -- new forms that we're often desperate to apply in retrospect to his subjective intensities, but that really only come later, in the work of post-Montaigneian philosophers and post-Shakespearean fabulists and poets. Sorry for having gone on so long. This self has been experiencing a cold, lonely, and quiet winter. Take my word for it. Robert Appelbaum UC Berkeley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Victor Gallerano Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 15:17:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0028 Re: Individualism FYI: Bill Godshalk, Not only did Thomas Aquinas not "remain a nameless Benedictine Monk"...he never became one. The Angelic Doctor was of the 'Order of Preachers' (that's the 'Dominicans' when they're at home) although the Cistercians tried to hang onto him after the demise of his corpulent delecti. That contest between two of the medieval orders is yet another indication that individuation did not wait upon the moderns (or even upon Duns Scotus, thank you Gerard Hopkins) for its importance to human beings. It strikes me that the difference between other ages and ours is that, for most of us moderns, individuation is a "problem to be solved" rather than a characteristic to be recognized as inherent in every being we encounter and eliciting a certain modesty (if not awe and wonder) in the beholder of that or any other individual (including ourselves as we encounter our own individual selves.) From this perspecive modern "individualism" is simply the popular opinion that all things, including our "selves" are properly and rightly subject to a "will to power" (Augustine called this the libido dominandi and thought it a consequence of original sin.) That the self is constituted by an act of individual will is an opinion which one way or another seems to suffuse all those thoughts we call "modern" (including the material/historical since, when radicalized, they all deconstruct into "will to power" philosophies rather despite themselves.) Which opinion about the individual is more accurate? We have to do the a-historicized work of setting the two opinions side by side, testing them empirically on the phenomena that present themselves to us and forming a judgement of our own. If our judgment happens to coincide with the judgment of the likes of Thomas Aquinas, then we can hoist our glasses to him and be content that neither the Cistercians nor the Dominicans got the best part of his corpus...and that the material-historicists are all the poorer for their presumption. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 17:16:32 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0028 Re: Individualism Bill Godshalk and I must beware of settling into folie a deux, but I would like to follow up his citation of Beowulf and its profoundly individualist ethos (which of course does not mean the social unit and its ideologies of unity are not important), by referring interested readers to Calvert Watkins fascinating and breathtakingly learned book _How to Kill a Dragon_, in which he demonstrates conclusively (among many other things) how deeply into the Indo-European poetic tradition the notion of the "imperishable fame" of the individual protagonist goes. No-one who has ever read Pindar, as only one instance, could possibly believe that the individual and his achievements were unimportant in the ancient world. And, unlike Homer (or for that matter Beowulf) these are not the achievements of mythical figures to be distinguished from "real" anonymous folks without any individual destinies or value. I do wish we could finally slay this particular dragon. May your names all abide forever, Tom (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 16:12:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0034 Re: Development of Individualism Since a number of people (most recently Jesus Cora) agree that self-consciousness cannot be historically located as originating in the Renaissance, but nevertheless feel that it has special importance to the period, could we say that it is newly "foregrounded" or perhaps "defamiliarized"? Perhaps the fact of self-consciousness simply becomes more remarkable to these people, living in a period of metaphysical uncertainty, then it was to those for whom it had a place in the more certain metaphysical system of the middle ages. Some people suggest that self-consciousness is a result of alienation from a received place ("civilization"). But could we also say that self-consciousness itself had a "place" to the medievals, as the Christian soul, the nature of which is called into question by the reformation and its various preludes? Hence the new interest in self-consciousness at the time. Cheers, Sean. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 19:48:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Individualism Perhaps I did not perfectly express my thought on the subject of the birth of individualism, so, here goes again. Individualism is not a thing that is or isn't here or there, it's a concept purely. We are herd animals and we need and must have others like us. We will always find a way to share part of what we are with others. We will always feels ourselves separate from others as well. This is one of the primary dichotomies of existence, like day and night, youth and age, male and female, black and white. All life is a rhythm between the two. The glass is half empty or half full. We yearn for contact, and when we have it, we begin to yearn for privacy, for solitude. Once we get that, after a bit, we begin to yearn again for contact. This occurs over longer cycles among human communities as well. Stone age communities share each others lives in the way a herd of animals shares each others lives. As communities become more "civilized", that is, larger, urbanized, with individuals that are more and more interchangable, with work ever more specialized, with the use of written language, and those who specialize in written language increasing a special field of consciousness that remains beyond the limits of the three generational limits of human memory. At this point, concepts such as "individualism" are born. It is as though a blind community began to see the world around them, and invented the word "blue" to describe the sky. The sky wasn't born at that time, merely the concept. To point to various peaks of consciousness along the path of "civilization" as evidence of a continuing sense of "individualism" is to claim that because these peaks are topped with snow, snow fills all the valleys and the regions beneath. Certainly the great writers of the past were conscious of themselves as individuals, and enough others like them to provide them with an audience sufficient to ensure that their works would remain in print for centuries. There seems to be enough evidence that the Middle Ages, also known as "the Dark Ages", were among the valleys of human consciousness, not the peaks. That's not to say they weren't having a good time. Perhaps the concept of "individualism" is less likely to occur with communities who have a good time. Perhaps it is not pure coincidence that the rise of this particular form of consciousness coincides with the repression of the revels on holidays by an increasingly puritannical English establishment. In other words, the reality of individualism is and always has been a given, while "individualism" as a concept, arises wherever a certain kind of consciousness arises. The rise that took place in Shakespeare's time was only one such, but it was a big one. Stephanie Hughes (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry Ross Date: Saturday, 13 Jan 1996 08:10:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Thomas Aquinas, O.P. W. L. Godshalk said, > And, if you take a glance at medieval history, you will see a chronicle of > individualist assertion. The Papacy fights with the Empire; the Christians > invade the Holy Land, and so on. The Popes take names and sign bulls. Thomas > Aquinas did not remain a nameless Benedictine monk. Thomas Aquinas couldn't very well have remained a nameless Benedictine monk: the Angelic Doctor was a Dominican priest. Terry Ross (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Reed Date: Saturday, 13 Jan 1996 10:59:36 -0800 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0034 Re: Development of Individualism Jesus Cora writes: It is just that I think that individualism and self-consciousness are quite relevant in the period, much more than in any other period. As to drama, with the huge amounts of plays-within-the-plays and other insets, as well as self-reference to the dramatic art in many of the plays, I think that theatrical self-consciousness also becomes quite important and may be included in a general drive to and interest in self-consciousness (but, again, I know, we also find theatrical self-consciousness in Terence). I am in accordance with his views, but I would like to find the terms that express/define why individualism is quite relevant. The boundaries between public and private are a favorite and easy binary experienced "throughout time", but we need to articulate the distinctive manifestation of this tension in each age/culture. Beowulf's individualism was, I imagine, very important and relevant for entirely different reasons than it was for Shakespeare. And I too would look, with Jesus Cora, into theatrical self-consciousness in order to begin plotting what is at stake in Renaissance English individualism. Quite a bit of work has been done on 17th centuy conscience & casuistry; not nearly so much on the construction of conscience in the 16th, however. If conscience is the avatar of individuality in the 17th (and I'm not certain by any means that it is -- perhaps its just a likely candidate), what did it come from that was distinctly 16th/Renaissance? I'm really not sure where this is going, but I am very engaged with the topic. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 19:39:09 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0038 Re: FE, Tmp., Ven., Luc. Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0038. Saturday, 13 January 1996. (1) From: Gavin H Witt Date: Friday, 12 Jan 96 19:42:24 CST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0032 Re: "A Funeral Elegy" (2) From: David Lindley Date: Saturday, 13 Jan 1996 10:15:54 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.006 Re: "A Funeral Elegy" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gavin H Witt Date: Friday, 12 Jan 96 19:42:24 CST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0032 Re: "A Funeral Elegy" Michael Yogev writes that he finds _Tempest_ not valedictory but "highly Jacobean...without the transgressive hijinks and sexual fun--a grim affair altogether." Well, two comments. First, I think in this context "valedictory" is usually/traditionally and with some justice applied to the play in response to a sense that it represents the authors farewell to the theater. Prospero's destruction and abandonment of his means of creating magical art at the play's end is linked for many with Shakespeare's own retirement from the theater, nearly simultaneous with the timing of _Tempest_. Perhaps it seems as much a benediction of art as a valediction, since it lives on each time the play is performed, but that has always seemed to me the usual characterization of the piece. Second, regarding the proposed grimness of the play and absence of "sexual fun" I'm not too sure what the usual Jacobean sexual fun would be? _White Devil_? _Changeling_? _'Tis Pity_? _Duchess of Malfi_? _Volpone_? And the list goes on--sexuality is painful, distressing, corrupt, filled with disease and madness and the horrible pains of desire in much of this theater; it represents and carries forward a number of political and cultural prerogatives, some transgressive and some extremely orthodox. But "fun"? In what sense? And how is _Tempest_ justifiably excluded from this; in addition to Caliban's past attempt to rape Miranda, he then tries to pimp her to Stephano, while Prospero is busy negotiating her virginity with Ferdinand.... And hijinks there certainly are, with Trinculo and Stephano certainly even if Ariel is played entirely seriously. I don't know what productions Mr. Yogev has had to endure, but "grim" the play should never be. It has its brutal side, but the two clowns are among the most accessibly funny in the plays of the period from my experience--watching, directing, and performing in productions of the play. They do more work than simply comic relief, but they have hijinks. Falling in puddles of stinking horse-piss certainly counts as hijinks in my book. I'm curious as to what other reactions might be, and to get more from Mr. Yogev about why he finds it grim and what other plays offer in terms of sexual fun, from the same period. Restoration, certainly, something else starts to happen. But in the Jacobean moment, _Tempest_ has always struck me as remarkably representative, even to the use of the theatrics of power through the masque and its vocabulary of sexuality. Gavin Witt University of Chicago ghwitt@midway.uchicago.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Saturday, 13 Jan 1996 10:15:54 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.006 Re: "A Funeral Elegy" I wonder how many would agree with Joe Shea that Shakespeare's poems have interest only as 'historical oddities'?! I have found both 'Venus and Adonis' and 'Rape of Lucrece' both fascinating in themselves and, perhaps more suprisingly, interesting to students. Moreover, in doing the annual review for Shakespeare Survey over the last five years it has been noticeable how scholarly interest in both has grown markedly recently. Students in particular have found that the ambivalent responses to a predatory female sexuality elicited by 'Venus and Adonis', and the questions of responsibility and blame raised by 'Lucrece', for example, are fascinating both in exploring Early Modern attitudes to gender and sexuality, and in raising questions that are still significant in the gender politics of the late twentieth century. Perhaps their time has now come? David Lindley ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 19:46:25 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0039 Re: RNT RII; Cultural Studies Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0039. Saturday, 13 January 1996. (1) From: Jerry Sebold Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 09:27:26 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0029 RNT RII (2) From: David Skeele Date: Saturday, 13 Jan 96 11:21:39 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0026 Qs: Cultural Studies (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Sebold Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 09:27:26 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0029 RNT RII Rick, I had the opportunity to not only see Fiona Shaw in RII this summer but to meet with her after the production in an informal setting. I concur that the production was superb and though I am admittedly a little old fashioned and expected to be disappointed at the production, I found her to be the key to its success. She is one of the most engaging and erudite actresses I have ever met and has an enormous grasp of the text ( which I have come not to expect from many actors or actresses). RII was spectacular in my opinion and far from detracting from it, Ms. Shaw made the production. I wish we had the opportunity to see more of her work. Regards, Jerry Sebold (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Saturday, 13 Jan 96 11:21:39 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0026 Qs: Cultural Studies In response to Katie Hannah's query, I can suggest several interesting texts which examine Shakespeare in the context of cultural history (several of which I have previously recommended in SHAKSPER). Here they are: _Looking at Shakespeare: A Visual History of Twentieth Century Production _, by Dennis Kennedy _The Modernist Shakespeare_, by Hugh Grady _Shakespeare Refashioned: Elizabethan Plays on Edwardian Stages_, by Cary Mazer I hope to have my own work published at some point in the near future (I'm actually just beginning to shop it around). Entitled "Thwarting the Wayward Seas: A Critical and Theatrical History of Shakespeare's _Pericles_ in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries," it looks at _Pericles_ as a barometer of cultural history over the last two hundred years. Hope these suggestions help. Oops, I almost forgot, _Caliban: A Cultural History_, would also fit the bill. I can't remember the author's first names (there are two authors, married I believe) but their last name is Vaughan. Best Wishes, David Skeele Slippery Rock University ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 19:51:17 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0040 Re: Winter's Tale Photos; Soliloquies Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0040. Saturday, 13 January 1996. (1) From: Dale Lyles Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 15:18:45 -0500 Subj: Winter's Tale Photos (2) From: Jesus Cora Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 13:57:47 UTC+0200 Subj: SHK 6.0942 Soliloquies (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 15:18:45 -0500 Subject: Winter's Tale photos Those who are curious as to what the NCTC Winter's Tale looked like can catch a few production photos over on our brand new web page: http://shenandoah.peachnet.edu/~dlyles/nctc-www/nctc.html Alas, I have no photos of the final scene; I'm working towards pulling some from the video. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Friday, 12 Jan 1996 13:57:47 UTC+0200 Subject: SHK 6.0942 Soliloquies [I tried to submit this message earlier this month, but I haven't been able to do so because of the bug Hardy has told us about] Dear all, I have been reviewing my e-mail after Christmas and I have decided to add one little observation to the issue of soliloquies after having read Robert Yarington's *Two Tragedies in One*. In this play, the asides of the characters are followed by the stage directions *To the people*, indicating that these were addressed to the audience. These asides show what the murderous characters really think, in contrast to what they tell other characters. Therefore, as they are a way of conveying their internal thoughts just as soliloquies are, I think it is possible to infer that the Elizabethan and Jacobean practice was to address the soliloquies to the audience and not to pretend that the characters were "thinking aloud". Could you find any texts in which soliloquies are pre- ceded by the direction *To the people*? This, I admit, contradicts my previous message on the subject. Yours, J. Cora Universidad de Alcala de Henares (Spain)========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 14:58:15 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0041 Re: Soliloquies; "to the people" Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0041. Monday, 15 January 1996. (1) From: David Reed Date: Saturday, 13 Jan 1996 10:59:36 -0800 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0040 Re: Soliloquies (2) From: Chae Lian Diong Date: Sunday, 14 Jan 1996 13:24:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0040 Re: Soliloquies (3) From: Leslie Thomson Date: Sunday, 14 Jan 1996 13:35:30 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0040 Re: "to the people" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Reed Date: Saturday, 13 Jan 1996 10:59:36 -0800 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0040 Re: Soliloquies J. Cora writes on the (past) issue of soliloquies, but I think its all rather appropo with regard to the more recent chating about individuality. Could such playing with internal/external play a role in defining individuality? I'm just speculating here. Any thoughts about how crazy this is would be greatly appreciated. Here is the relevant excerpt from J. Cora: These asides show what the murderous characters really think, in contrast to what they tell other characters. Therefore, as they are a way of conveying their internal thoughts just as soliloquies are, I think it is possible to infer that the Elizabethan and Jacobean practice was to address the soliloquies to the audience and not to pretend that the characters were "thinking aloud". Could you find any texts in which soliloquies are preceded by the direction *To the people*? This, I admit, contradicts my previous message on the subject. David M. Reed Washington University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chae Lian Diong Date: Sunday, 14 Jan 1996 13:24:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0040 Re: Soliloquies > I think it is possible to infer that the Elizabethan and Jacobean > practice was to address the soliloquies to the audience and not to > pretend that the characters were "thinking aloud". One of the Royal Shakespeare Company's famous directors, John Barton, directs it this way. He believes that it not only makes the most sense, but is also the most dramatic and effective way of showing what the characters really think. His own research into Elizabethan theatre has prompted him to conclude that it is most likely that soliloquies were addressed to the audience (Brechtian, some might say) as a way of involving them into the world of the play and possibly, to provide stagehands the opportunity to change scenery without having to stop the action on stage. Shakespeare's plays were performed to audiences of all types, so soliloquies must have been useful to the less-educated classes as a tool to clarify and distinguish the motives of characters. Diong Chae Lian (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leslie Thomson Date: Sunday, 14 Jan 1996 13:35:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0040 Re: "to the people" "To the people" meaning "to the audience" is used in stage directions in only two other plays besides *Two Lamentable Tragedies": *The Maid's Metamorphosis* and *A Warning for Fair Women*. Leslie Thomson ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 15:05:11 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0042 Re: Development of Individualism Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0042. Monday, 15 January 1996. (1) From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Sunday, 14 Jan 1996 14:30:00 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0037 Re: Development of Individualism (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 14 Jan 1996 20:21:53 -0800 Subj: Re: Development of Individualism (3) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Monday, 15 Jan 1996 01:34:34 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0037 Re: Development of Individualism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Sunday, 14 Jan 1996 14:30:00 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0037 Re: Development of Individualism Robert Appelbaum is quite right to warn us that what needs more careful investigation (however difficult a task) is the set of questions we could lump together under the rubric of "culture" and how various cultures that differ from, but also inherit from and interact with, one another imagine (or whatever other verb you want) "selfhood". I'm not sure I would myself know how to begin separating what he categorizes as "theories of the self, representations of the self, discourses of the self and technologies of the self" as it seems to me each is likely to include the others. Nor am i sure I would know what to do when I had artfully segregated these categories, except perhaps to explore their modes of reintegration. Is, to take an earlier example I used, Pindar's 2nd Olympian a theory, a representation, a discourse or a technology? It is surely all these things, and a great deal more. It encodes archaic Greek understandings of the relations between fame, effort, the names and relations of individuals both mortal and immortal, the stories told of these figures before and including the present one, and the very ancient verbal techniques traditionally used to represent all these things. In order to understand such an artifact, the most scrupulous care is needed, and nothing short of a developed acquaintance with the whole of archaic Greek culture (and several other cultures) will do. I do not have that acquaintance. And while I agree that "by golly, they're just like us" is hardly a critical judgment, I believe the brooding historicist solitude that insists "they're so remote they can have nothing in common with us" is likewise premature, as usually practised. Their difference and similarity are alike objects of historical and imaginative contemplation, and we short-change both ourselves and them if we pass over either. On a thawing day in the heart of winter, Tom (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 14 Jan 1996 20:21:53 -0800 Subject: Re: Development of Individualism Stephanie Hughes's incredible views call for an answer > We will > always find a way to share part of what we are with others. We will always > feels ourselves separate from others as well. This is one of the primary > dichotomies of existence, like day and night, youth and age, male > and female, black and white. All life is a rhythm between the two. The > glass is half empty or half full. So, life is a rhythm between "youth and age", between "black and white", etc? What on earth do you think that means? Pseudo-spiritual drivel like this should be kept to oneself and not broadcast. I'm surprised you didn't mention yin and yang and 'value-free binary oppositions'. If you are opposed to the critical practice of deconstruction then say so. Did you expect anyone else to read this list you made up and say 'Oooh yes, those ARE the primary dichotomies of existence'. > Stone age communities share each others lives in the way a herd of animals > shares each others lives. As communities become more "civilized", that is, > larger, urbanized, with individuals that are more and more interchangable, > with work ever more specialized, with the use of written language, and > those who specialize in written language increasing a special field of > consciousness that remains beyond the limits of the three generational > limits of human memory. At this point, concepts such as "individualism" > are born. It is as though a blind community began to see the world > around them, and invented the word "blue" to describe the sky. The sky > wasn't born at that time, merely the concept. This is plagiarized from that crypto-fascist, Plato. There's an odd use of tense here: are there "stone age communities" now in existence, or did you mean "shared each others lives" and "became more 'civilized'"? Is there an error in the second sentence, or does it intentionally lack a main verb? I've just spotted your method! We have not yet reached the stage of civilization, hence even "those who specialize in written language" cannot string a sentence together. Derridean technique in action! > There seems to be enough evidence that the Middle Ages, also known as "the > Dark Ages", were among the valleys of human consciousness, not the peaks. > That's not to say they weren't having a good time. Perhaps the concept of > "individualism" is less likely to occur with communities who have a good > time. We're really into flights of positivist fantasy here. The implication is that our would-be sky-watchers popped back into their dark cave for a thousand years (say 500 to 1500) and then emerged again (ie were reborn, hence 'Renaissance'). > Perhaps it is not pure coincidence that the rise of this particular > form of consciousness coincides with the repression of the revels on > holidays by an increasingly puritannical English establishment. I want to hear you substantiate this claim. Who or what do you think the "English establishment" was? Gabriel Egan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Monday, 15 Jan 1996 01:34:34 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0037 Re: Development of Individualism I am confused about a great many things in Stephanie Hughes' post that was meant to clarify her first post. The crux of my credulity is, perhaps, a chicken and egg dilemma, but I can't understand why Ms. Hughes assumes that explaining humanity's social tendency as a natural fact should be satisfactiory. Perhaps we became "herd animals" specifically because of individual self consciousness? In other words, because a few of the evolved individuals realized that it would be easier and more productive to live communaly, we all got together. I am also confused about the following: "the reality of individualism is and always has been a given, while "individualism" as a concept, arises wherever a certain kind of consciousness arises." Why would the reality of individualism always have been a given? Who made it so? Is it not, rather, completely reliant on the perception of individualism as a concept? Furthermore, doesn't the concept of individualism automatically exist as a function of consciousness? I agree that different individulas/societies/communities may exist in differing relationships to the concept of individualism, but this only enforces its need to exist as a concept in these individuals/societies/communities. Shirley Kagan. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 13:50:56 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0043 Re: "The Funeral Elegy" Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0043. Tuesday, 16 January 1996. (1) From: Nicholas Ranson Date: Monday, 15 Jan 96 20:15:59 EST Subj: "The Funeral Elegy" (2) From: Lim Wee Ching Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 1996 17:02:35 +0800 (SST) Subj: _Funeral Elegy_ (3) From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 1996 08:11:37 +0000 (HELP) Subj: ELEGY ON ELEGIE (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nicholas Ranson Date: Monday, 15 Jan 96 20:15:59 EST Subject: "The Funeral Elegy" This is to congratulate Don Foster on a good interview on the Lehrer Newshour tonight: I taped it and will use it as a teaser for my three Shakespeare classes tomorrow! Roger Rosenblatt's comments were helpful too. Shakespeare lives (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lim Wee Ching Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 1996 17:02:35 +0800 (SST) Subject: _Funeral Elegy_ Greetings, With the recent flurry of interest with regards to WS's _Funeral Elegy_ I was just wondering if anyone could provide me with more historical and/or scholarship information about it (viz. discovery, attribution at al.) Or if there had been any discussions regarding it prior to the recent ones. Many advance thanks. CHING (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 1996 08:11:37 +0000 (HELP) Subject: ELEGY ON ELEGIE ELEGY ON ELEGIE To think this Elegie from willful hand did spring Were common vice, that finds in many words And phrases echoes of the poet, some thing Not unlike likeness and in some aspect Worthy of looking, and in looking finding A well scanned line amid the mess of rhyme As 'njambing thread on thread is winding O'er thoughts that weakly use the time. 'Tis not the worst unblotted piece of verse Retirement brought, with new maturity Of line-break, in which momentary pronouns and Conjunctions strain both metre and credulity As now and then i'*The Tempest*, where his hand Arrives at natural speech yet artful too. I could not help but think lines fifty three And Fifty four particularly awful: [`Which, harvest-like, did yield again the crop Of education, bettered in his truth.'] Yet fun it is, and so in funning we May, with final ending weak, still be aweful. Harry Hill Montreal ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 14:00:44 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0044 RSC Dream; Comparative Lepidus; Re: Soliloquies Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0044. Tuesday, 16 January 1996. (1) From: John Chapot Date: Monday, 15 Jan 1996 16:22:40 -0500 Subj: RSC Dream opens in SF (2) From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 15 Jan 1996 18:34:09 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Comparative Lepidus (3) From: Florence Amit Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 1996 10:06:37 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0041 Re: Soliloquies; "to the people" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Chapot Date: Monday, 15 Jan 1996 16:22:40 -0500 Subject: RSC Dream opens in SF The Royal Shakespeare Company's touring production of A Midsummer Night's Dream opened last Tuesday at the Golden Gate Theatre here in San Francisco. It will play three other cities over the next four months. It was favorable reviewed in both major dailies here (the SF Examiner and Chronicle). You can access those reviews on their joint net site at http://www.sfgate.com. Production info and press releases are available from the presenter, Shorenstein-Nederlander at their web site, http://www.bwaytheatresf.com . As for my own response to this 'Matisse' production directed by Adrian Noble: The production had a gorgeous design which produced one breathtaking moment at the end of Act III. The use of suspended umbrellas and a swing were a pale echo of Peter Brook's famous production, but the direction and casting fell short of that masterpiece. Lots of mounting and humping all around, somehow out of sync in the refined environment (no earth tones or barky fingers of the elm here). Considerable doubling made the fairy and court crowd scenes rather underpopulated. A sour and low-key Puck was all wrong at the final preview I saw. Alex Jenning's Oberon brilliant in voice, but too young in appearance (for this graybeard!). The lovers were uneven, but rallied in the second part; Emily Raymond's Helena a standout. The rustics were wonderful. To my surprise, at the end, I was thoroughly transported. Somehow my many small objections - a line reading here, a gesture there - were made insignificant by the brilliance of the script and the experience of the performance. Kudos to Carole Shorenstein for instigating the tour, and best wishes for success at the box office. For a humorous essay about the dread of having to sit through yet another production of Dream, see Jon Carroll's column today, Monday Jan. 15 in the SF Chronicle at the web site noted above. John Chapot San Francisco (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 15 Jan 1996 18:34:09 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Comparative Lepidus Lepidus has the misfortune, in a 90's production, of being burdened with an ornamented statement as his first utterance. I am playing the role at the Centaur Theatre in Montreal, with Scott Wentworth and Seana McKenna as the famous lovers, fresh from their other pair, the Macbeths at Stratford Ontario this past season. The brilliant young actor Peter Farbridge, playing Octavius Caesar, no sooner completes a very accessible rant about Antony's lasciviousness and drunkenness than I have to say the following, which I know, despite my own clarity of voice and attitude, has the audience unable to focus on the end of my speech for puzzlement about the third line, and I can understand their intellectual confusion. I must not think there are [terrific line-break, giving me certain clues about interpretation] Evils enow to darken all his goodness. [so far so good] His faults, in him, seem as the spots of heaven, More fiery by night's blackness, hereditary [another gifted, organic line-break] Rather than purchased; what he cannot change, Than what he chooses. "The spots of heaven" are Shakespeare on a bad day. He hasn't mentioned NIGHT yet. By the time the public hears "night's blackness", they MIGHT just cotton on to the spots as stars, but in thinking about that they miss my main points about Antony's weaknesses being not entirely of his own choosing, but in his blood. My first instinct was to substitute "stars", but the director looked as if he was about to lose consciousness, so it never got changed. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how the remaining four weeks of the run might be marginally more pleasurable for me by my first of so few entrances being made totally accessible? Harry Hill (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Florence Amit Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 1996 10:06:37 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0041 Re: Soliloquies; "to the people" To David Reed, The next question becomes whether Shakespeare would have wanted to exploit the soliloqy in a direct application to the audience making that instance a kind of theatre of the absurd experience. Here is an example of where I think he wanted to do just that: Lancelot Gabbo's discussion with himself about the fiend or as it turns out "fiends". (M.V.,II,10-24) The Jew my master who - God bless the mark! - is a kind of devil. What mark? His circumcision? God blessed. What kind of devil? The devil of theatrical tradition, of local anti-Semitism, of the Pope's bull or is it the devilish expediency that Shylock has assumed for his own purposes? (another discussion) After all Gabo has been Shylock's servant for some time and only just now does he feel that he must move on. "to run away from the Jew, I should be ruled by the fiend who-saving your reverence-is the devil himself" This is a direct address to "your reverence" - the audience. Lancelot is saying that to desert the Jew He does a Satanic thing which is to be ruled by a fiend who is not Shylock, the more common fiend of Venice in the wake of the Pope's bull and the inquisition, and the fiend in the minds of an indoctrinated, audience except for and not only for sake of politeness, "your reverence", the exceptional viewer. "Certainly the Jew is the very devil incarnation". Here Lancelot beholds the assumed role, the Purim-like, red glowing devil that is now Shylock. Shylock's provocations and the recinding of his Talmudic shield has centered attention upon himself. He is behaving as a member of a persecuted minority dare not behave although the dominate culture audience has these very expectations which seem so very dangerous. "and in my conscience, my conscience is but a kind of hard conscience" to justfy this new, unfamiliar Shylock is to have an inflexible "hard" conscience. Yet it is the conscience of the viewer that he is addressing. It is precisely their conscience for it never recognized the real Jew under the Purim mask at all. A conscience which would counsel Lancelot to stay when the climax of Shylock's actions approches is also a hard conscience. There may be a pogram. "The fiend gives the more friendly counsel" Again , which fiend? The anti-semite fiend has always counseled to abandon the Jew. More in keeping with events is Shylock, now fiend, sending Lancelot to a safe haven. "I will run, fiend, my heels are at your commandment, I will run" Lancelot leaves to serve the family under new circumstances while his heels, a term of contempt are at the commandment of the public "fiend". I think that Gabbo is calling the audience hard, fiend and lacking in conscience. He is doing this in a mock confrontation with the audience to echo Shylock's fictional confrontation. Shakespeare knew that the real drama was in living at that time for the Jews; the stage could but present a myth. So history books is where we find our motives for the "Merchant of Venice". Since the idea of avoiding confrontation in the wake of insult is stranger to members of the audience in a dominate culture than their tendency to react in a spirit of revenge, Shakespeare had to deal with a psycological dillema which is truly fiendish. The audience tends to identify with Shylock for precisely the wrong reasons. (which of course, Shylock exploits in order to get his plan accomplished. Desperate times require desperate measures.) But from our point of view it is regretable. Our theatrical tradition has never really recovered its ballance, has never presumed that another Shylock is under the fiendish mask. When ever it does it will need Lancelot Gabbo for the assistance that Shakespeare put him there to give. Florence Amit ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 14:03:23 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0045 CFP: Early Modern Science Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0045. Tuesday, 16 January 1996. From: A. S. Weber Date: Monday, 15 Jan 1996 18:31:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: CFP: Early Modern Science *********************************************************** CALL FOR PAPERS *********************************************************** EARLY MODERN SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSES Special MLA Session 1996 MLA Convention Washington, D.C. Requesting papers on Early Modern (1400 - 1700) scientific discourses. Topics may include, but are not limited to: discourses of specific scientific disciplines, relationships of literary to scientific discourse, real character and universal language movements, discourse and scientific epistemology, scientific semiotics, construction of science through discourse. All theoretical perspectives are welcome and inter-disciplinary work is encouraged. REPLY by March 15, 1996 with 500 word abstract or complete 20 minute presentation and brief description of research interests to: A. S. Weber Box 217 Department English SUNY Binghamton Binghamton, NY 13905 br00126@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 14:06:47 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0046 Folger Institute: Shakespeare and the Worlds of Communism Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0046. Tuesday, 16 January 1996. From: Chad Hayton Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 1996 12:31:37 -0500 Subject: Folger Institute: Shakespeare and the Worlds of Communism FOLGER INSTITUTE CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT SHAKESPEARE AND THE WORLDS OF COMMUNISM, 1920-1990 A phenomenon of the Communist epoch's production, adaptation, and reconstruction of the works of Shakespeare to promote Marxism, communism, and then socialism in the Eastern Bloc nations. Marx and Engels urged their followers to "look back to Shakespeare," who was seen as a precursor of the Soviet revolution. Lenin and Stalin used Shakespeare to promulgate and popularize Party doctrine in the theater and media. Between 1920 and 1940, five million copies of Shakespeare's plays were published in the twenty-eight languages of the Soviet Union. A Pravda editorial summed up Soviet indebtedness: "Illumined in the rays of humanism, Shakespeare's works are living a full life in our country and are helping us to build a new society of men." On the other hand, both in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, a subversive Shakespeare emerged, cloaking dissident perspectives in the guise o Renaissance classics. This conference, funded by the National Endowment for the humanities and sponsored by the Pennsylvania State University, will examine the roles which Shakespeare played in the worlds of communism and socialism. This conference brings together an international panel of experts on Shakespeare and communism. Chaired by conference organizer Joseph G. Price, the speakers will include Irena Makaryk, from Canada; Martin Hilsky and Zdenek Stribrny, form the Czech Republic; Lawrence Guntner, Werner Habicht, Maik Hamburger, and Robert Weimann, from Germany; Ivanka Koviloska-Poposka, from Macedonia, Krystyna Kujawinska-Courtney, from Poland; Alexei Bartoshevitch and Alexander Parfenov, from Russia; and Jean Howard, Jeanne Newlin, Laurence Senelick, and Wilhelm von Werthern, from the United States. SCHEDULE: Thursday evening, Friday, and Saturday, 4, 5, and 6 April 1996. LOCATION: The Folger Institute in Washington, D.C. REGISTER TO ATTEND: 1 Februrary 1996 deadline. Registration fee: $45.00. Registration information should be sent to the Folger Institute. If you have any questions about the conference or registration, please contact Chad Hayton at cxh36@psu.edu or call the Folger at (202) 544-4600. Chad Hayton Pennsylvania State University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 15:38:55 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0047 Re: Lepidus Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0047. Wednesday, 17 January 1996. (1) From: Steve Sohmer Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 1996 20:20:02 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0044 Lepidus (2) From: C. David Frankel Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 1996 20:52:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0044 Comparative Lepidus; (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 1996 20:20:02 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0044 Lepidus For Harry Hill: regarding Lepidus. Lepidus, you must remember, was elected Pontifex Maximus on the death of Caesar. His election to the post of "Chief Bishoppe of Rome" as North called him in his Plutarch of 1579, was engineering by Antony in order that the title and honor not go to Octavius. Prior to his death, Caesar had forced a bill through the Senate which entitled Caesar's successor to both his civic and religious honors. Caesar had been Pontifex Maximus for some twenty years at the time of his death. Although Octavius eventually stripped Lepidus of his command and his provinces and forced him into retirement, Octavius did not deprive Lepidus of his title of Pontifex Maximus. On the death of Lepidus (12 BC) Octavius took the title, and Roman emperors thereafter were both head-of-state and head-of-church (as was one European monarch in Shakespeare's time, Elizabeth I). Shakespeare does not have a very high opinion of Lepidus' intellect. See Antony's description of Lepidus in the "black proscriptions" scene in Julius Caesar. I think Shakespeare wrote the Lepidus of A&C as an impotent clergyman trying to bring adversaries together (a hopeless task). Antony, too, was a priest, having been named chief priest of the new college of Lupercii which was created to honor Caesar in 44BC. Which is why Antony runs the course in Shakespeare's play as he did in Plutarch. Shakespeare would have known all the above from his reading of Plutarch. If you need more info, please write. Good luck! Steve Sohmer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 1996 20:52:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0044 Comparative Lepidus; > I must not think there are > [terrific line-break, giving > me certain clues about > interpretation] > Evils enow to darken all his goodness. Stress "darken" slightly > [so far so good] > His faults, in him, seem as the spots of heaven, Realize Octavius doesn't get the comparison, so expand on it -- as much as to say "understand now?" > More fiery by night's blackness, hereditary He still doesn't quite get it, so after blackness switch metaphors , all the while trying to make sure Octavius follows you. > [another gifted, organic > line-break] > Rather than purchased; what he cannot change, > Than what he chooses. Of course, not knowing anything about the character you've created this suggestion may not work at all. Good luck. C. David Frankel frankel@arts.usf.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 15:43:06 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0048 Re: "A Funeral Elegy" Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0048. Wednesday, 17 January 1996. (1) From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 17 Jan 1996 08:38:43 -0400 (EDT) Subj: "A Funeral Elegy" (2) From: Terrance Kearns Date: Wednesday, 17 Jan 1996 10:42:53 CST6CDT Subj: Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 17 Jan 1996 08:38:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "A Funeral Elegy" My kind thanks to Hardy Cook, Nicholas Ranson, and others for their kind remarks. I did not seek the publicity for FE; I'm doing my best to cope with it. I have tried accurately to represent Shakespeare studies to the television audience, and without making an ass of myself (in my 45 years on the planet, I have had fewer experiences with the media than with making an ass of myself). It's tough talking into one of those TV cameras without feeling silly. If any of you can suggest how best to nudge the press toward respect for our profession, please let me know before this little flurry of attention subsides. It seems to me that the public press often takes pleasure in characterizing literary scholars as (1) eccentric dolts who make up stupid interpretations about old books, or (2) niggling pedants who bicker with one another about literary trivia. The recent stories about FE have been almost surprisingly respectful of our profession--which, after years of university-bashing in the media, is a welcome change of tone. Thanks to Harry Hill for his wonderfully witty parody of the "Funeral Elegy." (The elegist has surely been "bettered in his wit," by Harry, if not "bettered in "truth.") For the two lines of FE that Harry finds "particularly awful" (though I'm sure that Harry and I could both find much more awfuller examples), see *Elegy by W.S.*, p. 155. Lim Wee Ching asks an important question about FE (the only question that really matters): Where is the evidence? The newspapers are printing an uncritical account of this poem's "discovery," which in the long run is inconsequential. Finding FE took no work at all--I wasn't even looking for it when I found it. It is the establishment of a consensus that matters. Now, six years after the publication of my book, that consensus seems to be taking shape--but not as a result of what's been printed in the papers (where the case for Shakespearean authorship cannot be set forth except in the most perfunctory fashion). If "any press is good press," as we are often told, then Shakespeare has been getting good press, and that's good for Shakespeare studies; but when the press fanfare dies (a few minutes from now), it's time to do the homework, and to take a hard look at the evidence. Many Shakespeareans have already done so. The best place to begin, for those unfamiliar with this poem's reception, will be Rick Abrams's piece in the Winter '95 issue of SNL (due out any day now). My 1989 book (*Elegy by W.S.: A Study in Attribution*) provides a detailed account of the poem and of the obstacles to a "Shakespeare" attribution. Only in the past year have I become convinced (1) Shakespeare indeed wrote the poem, and (2) that other Shakespeareans will agree. The most compelling evidence of Shakespearean authorship has yet to be presented in print, but was set forth in condensed form at the SAA and again at the MLA Conventon, by Rick Abrams and myself. (Abrams's SNL piece should not be confused with his main attributional argument, which has been several years in development and not yet submitted for publication.) At the MLA Session, Stephen Booth, Lars Engle, and Leo Daugherty spoke on why it might actually matter that Shakespeare wrote FE (and it will matter a good deal in the years ahead). Of those Shakespeareans who have seen the evidence laid out in full, I do not know of anyone who is still supposing that someone other than Shakespeare may have written FE (if you're out there, please speak up)--but it will be a long time before a well-informed consensus emerges in published scholarship. Unfortunately, this late spate of publicity has preceded the most compelling evidence, which puts the publicity-cart, inconveniently, ahead of the scholarship-horse. While waiting for the next round of attributional and critical work to appear in print, we have in SHAKSPER an excellent forum for critical discussion of the poem. Speaking strictly for myself, I'd be happy to see criticism of any kind, including even the less sophisticated, "ooh, it's yucky," variety of readerly response. Don Foster Vassar College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terrance Kearns Date: Wednesday, 17 Jan 1996 10:42:53 CST6CDT Subject: Elegy For those who might be interested, a transcript of Donald Foster's Newshour interview regarding the William Peter elegy is available on the Web at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/shake_1-15.html Terry Kearns University of Central Arkansas ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 08:40:01 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0049 Re: Lepidus; "Elegy"; New Films Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0049. Friday, 19 January 1996. (1) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Wednesday, 17 Jan 1996 12:19:56 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0047 Re: Lepidus (2) From: Susan Mather Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 1996 14:36:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0043 Re: "The Funeral Elegy" (3) From: David Hale Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 96 14:59:40 EST Subj: re: SHAKSPER: SHK 7.0020 Re: McKellens R3 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Wednesday, 17 Jan 1996 12:19:56 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0047 Re: Lepidus For Harry Hill: Perhaps your break should come right before the word hereditary. This would: 1) Allow the audience to catch up with your new line of thinking 2) connect "hereditary" with "purchase" rather than with the line that went before. Does that seem satisfactory? Shirley Kagan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 1996 14:36:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0043 Re: "The Funeral Elegy" Dear Harry Hill-- Your poetry was wonderful--I hope you don't mind but, I sent this segment to a couple of Shakespeare cronies. They truly enjoyed the parody and think you should be published! Cheers! Susan Mather (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Hale Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 96 14:59:40 EST Subject: re: SHAKSPER: SHK 7.0020 Re: McKellens R3 SHAKSPEReans may wish to visit the the web sites of the new films of "Othello" and "Richard III." http://othello.guide.com http://www.mgmua.com/richard There are enough stills and promotional comments to convey a preliminary impression. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 08:46:28 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0050 Qs: Cross-Dressing; Shakespeare and Classics; Linda Shenk Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0050. Friday, 19 January 1996. (1) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Wednesday, 17 Jan 1996 12:25:45 -1000 Subj: An Inquiry (2) From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 1996 23:12:55 +0200 Subj: Shakespeare and Classics (3) From: Don Rowan Date: Friday, 19 Jan 1996 09:31:25 GMT-400 Subj: Linda Shenk's article (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Wednesday, 17 Jan 1996 12:25:45 -1000 Subject: An Inquiry I am beginning to take my first steps on that long, slippery slope down towards a Ph.D. My topic will be the gap between gender and sex in Shakespeare's work. I would like to concentrate on the cross dressing comedies, specifically "As You Like It", "Two Gents" and "Twelfth Night". It would be very helpful to me if members of this list could refer me to useful source material on this or closely related subjects. Please e-mail to me at the address below. I appreciate your help. Shirley Kagan. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 1996 23:12:55 +0200 Subject: Shakespeare and Classics Information for all who are interested in Shakespeare's background in the classics: In mid-1995 I resigned the editorship of the New Variorum Shakespeare: *Julius Caesar* in order to devote full attention to a supplement to my *Shakespeare and the Classical Tradition: A Critical Guide to Commentary, 1660-1960* (U of Minnesota Pr., 1968). The database for this supplement has been established for two years now, and is growing daily; I have two research assistants to speed the work. The relevant bibliographies have been surveyed through 1973 and entries are actually being written and entered in the database under the same headings that governed the materials in the original book. After my retirement from teaching in May 1996, I'll devote major effort to the project. *Books In Print* lists a supplement by someone else to my *Shakespeare and the Classical Tradition* (s.v. that title) as from Garland, 1992. No such book exists; it is a ghost. I naturally will be glad to hear from anyone who knows of a) significant omissions from the original *Shakespeare and the Classical Tradition*; or of b) more recent scholarship on Shakespeare and the classics (in any language) that is not listed in *PMLA*, *SQ*, or other major bibliographies; or c) relevant work presently in progress. Thanks. John W. Velz English Department University of Texas Austin, TX 78712 U.S.A. Or e-mail me through SHAKSPER, or directly and privately at the e-address above. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Rowan Date: Friday, 19 Jan 1996 09:31:25 GMT-400 Subject: Linda Shenk's article It has occurred to me that many members of SHAKSPER would welcome some comment or response from "theatre/performance" people to Linda Shenk"s article "Jane Howell and Subverting Shakespeare: Where Do We Draw the Line? (Shakespeare Bulletin, 13,4 (Fall 1995)33-35) I thought the article a very able presentation of one side of the most vexing question facing theatre scholars. Don. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 08:23:19 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0951 Re: Development of Individualism Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0051. Monday, 22 January 1996. (1) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 19 Jan 1996 10:07:19 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0042 Re: Development of Individualism (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 19 Jan 1996 10:38:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0042 Re: Development of Individualism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 19 Jan 1996 10:07:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0042 Re: Development of Individualism Gabriel Egan; Ye gods! Will the trials of poor academics never end? Who, I ask, who has let this raving anti-disestablishmentarian-anarcho-syndicalist ratfink into our sacred compound? Isn't it clear to everyone that this so-called Stephanie Hughes fully intends to destroy the English language by inciting decent deconstructionists to such murderous rage that they self-ignite and (she hopes) set the entire academic establishment on fire? Won't someone rid us of this noxious pseudo-spiritualist positivist? Wait, I think I hear her voice emerging from a heap of smoldering aspersions! She says she's very sorry about the missing verb, and that in fact she rather likes being linked with Plato in some way. Her voice is weak, but what I think she's saying is that since stone age communities are still in existence here and there in the world, it should be all right to speak of them in the present as well as the past. Now she's saying (in a much stronger voice) that if you're nice to her, very, very nice, she'll make an effort to substantiate her comments regarding the systematic destruction of the revels by an increasingly puritannical establishment, and the effect that this may have had on the "rise" of "individualism." She may even define "establishment." Well, she really seems pretty harmless. Perhaps we should let the poor thing live! A Well-wisher (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 19 Jan 1996 10:38:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0042 Re: Development of Individualism I am confused about Shirley Kagan's confusion about my post regarding the rise of individualism. She questions my observation that humans are herd animals, suggesting that perhaps some enlightened individuals early on decided that banding together in groups might work better than going it alone (singly? in couples?) in the wilderness forests and savannahs of neolithic times. Common sense would argue against this possibility even if standard anthropological models did not. She seems also to be questioning a separation between the reality of individualism (i.e. the obvious fact that we are indeed, phyiscally separate beings) and its function as a concept. There is a saying in Zen Buddhism about not mistaking the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself. I see the reality of the separation of individuals as the moon, while the concept of "individualism" is the finger pointing. There is always a moon. The philosophic finger of consciousness only points to it under certain conditions which arise along with the cultural phenomena we lump together under the concept "civilization." It is my guess that the concept of individualism only arises when this separateness becomes unpleasant, when society fragments, causing survival anxiety and loneliness, so that the phenomenon of separateness requires discussion, and terms with which to discuss it. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 08:34:44 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0952 Re: Cross-Dressing; New Films; RSC Dream; Individualism Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0052. Monday, 22 January 1996. (1) From: Susan Smather Date: Friday, 19 Jan 1996 16:54:20 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0050 Qs: Cross-Dressing (2) From: Joe Shea Date: Friday, 19 Jan 1996 19:22:36 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0049 New Films (3) From: Scott Crozier Date: Saturday, 20 Jan 1996 16:02:48 +1000 Subj: Re: RSC Dream (4) From: Jesus Cora Date: Monday, 22 Jan 1996 14:29:04 UTC+0200 Subj: SHK 7.0034 Re: Development of Individualism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Smather Date: Friday, 19 Jan 1996 16:54:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0050 Qs: Cross-Dressing Dear Shirley Kagan, I'm not sure of the author's name right now--it's Friday after all--but, last semester, in my Women and the Renaissance class, the professor brought in a good size volume of a text called, Vested Interests. It was very fascinating. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that the author traces the movement of crossdressing throughout history. Last semester, I working on crossdressing and As You Like It so hopefully, this weekend I will find my notes on some other sources. Cheers!--Susan Mather smather@phoenix.kent.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Shea Date: Friday, 19 Jan 1996 19:22:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0049 New Films I saw Othello and liked it very much. Larence Fishburn and Kenneth Branagh were just terrific. It is this kind of work that may make Shakespeare more accessible to a generation whose ears are pitched to gangsta rap! Who knows -- maybe they'll even move from rhyme to poetry. Best, Joe Shea (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Saturday, 20 Jan 1996 16:02:48 +1000 Subject: Re: RSC Dream In reply to comments by John Chapot, I also saw the RSC production in Stratford in 1994 and am about to deliver a paper at the Australian and New Zealand Shakespeare Association's Conference in Sydney in which, among other things, I will be discussing its inadequacies as a production. Just a short comment here - I'm trying to pack - I was interested that all the leading actors who were in the Dream at Stratford had what most of them would have described as more important major roles in other productions during that season; Jenkings played Pier Gynt; Stephens (Lysander) was Coriolanus; Gonet was Isabelle and so on. Although the production was the most popular of the season, I felt that many of the personell treated it as a warm up. It sounded beautiful and looked interesting (with more that its fair share of Brook quotations) but I found it lacklustre and stilted. There was very muddied development of the dream with Hippolyta and Theseus being doubled with the fairy squabblers and therefore the "dream" should have been theirs, but Bottom's imagination supplied the personell of the dream in the form of his lost lads doubling as the named fairies. Must pack Regards Scott Crozier (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Monday, 22 Jan 1996 14:29:04 UTC+0200 Subject: SHK 7.0034 Re: Development of Individualism Dear Chris Stroffolino, Ok, you see individualism in Grendel. While I agree with you that we can infer that from the fact that he opposes Beowulf, who is willing to die for the common good of his people, I do not see much self-consciousness in Grendel or, for that matter, in Beowulf. I think that individualism and self-consciousness go hand in hand, reinforcing mutually. If a character lacks self-consciousness we cannot say that s/he is a good portrayal of individualism. I see Grendel and Beowulf as opposed archetypes of evil and good. Negative individualism (egoism) is subsumed in a general notion of evil, therefore I think there is not much room for seeing Grendel as a fully realised self-conscious, individualist character like Iago (yes, I know, Iago also shows characteristics appertaining to the Vice, hence the Devil, and he is a Renaissance malcontent). Bye for now. J. Cora ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 08:42:08 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0953 Qs: Payne Roet; Irvin Matus; Measure for Measure resources Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0053. Monday, 22 January 1996. (1) From: Peter Herman Date: Friday, 19 Jan 1996 19:58:51 -0500 Subj: Re: Payne Roet (2) From: Don Foster Date: Saturday, 20 Jan 1996 10:11:23 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Irvin Matus (3) From: Daniel L. Colvin Date: Sunday, 21 Jan 1996 16:22:58 -0600 (CST) Subj: Measure for Measure resources (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Herman Date: Friday, 19 Jan 1996 19:58:51 -0500 Subject: Re: Payne Roet In Speght's edition of Chaucer's complete works, he includes a family tree making the incredible claims that Chaucer is related, by blood, to the Tudors. According to this fanciful genealogical notion, the common ancestor is one "Payne Roet, Knight." Does anyone know who or what this person is? Thanks, Peter C. Herman GSU (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Saturday, 20 Jan 1996 10:11:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Irvin Matus Irvin Matus, as it is rumored, has become jobless, homeless, and desperate for financial help. If anyone knows his whereabouts, please post it to Hardy so that those of us who'd like to help him out can do so. I've tried every lead I can think of. He seems simply to have vanished from the planet. Even the small book publisher that brought out his "Shakespeare, In Fact" seems to have disappeared. Don Foster (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel L. Colvin Date: Sunday, 21 Jan 1996 16:22:58 -0600 (CST) Subject: Measure for Measure resources I am presently involved in an NEH Institute at the Folger Library entitled "Examining Shakespeare Through Performance." Our subgroup is working on compiling a set of resources for those teaching _Measure for Measure_ at any level (non-majors, majors, graduate students). Our hope is that this material will be available on the SHAKSPER listserve, just as was the material from the previous Institute led by Lois Potter. To that end, we would like to know what kinds of material (assignments, secondary material, syllabi, lists of films, etc) you would like to have available as you teach the play. ANYTHING would be of interest to us. You can respond to the SHAKSPER list or to me privately, as you think most fit. Thank you, fellow SHAKSPEReans. Dan Colvin Western Illinois University Daniel_Colvin@ccmail.wiu.bgu or mfdlc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 09:08:24 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0054 Re: Cross-Dressing Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0054. Tuesday, 23 January 1996. (1) From: David J. Knauer Date: Monday, 22 Jan 96 9:31:45 EST Subj: Cross-Dressing (2) From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Monday, 22 Jan 1996 12:52:07 -0600 (CST) Subj: Cross-Dressing (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David J. Knauer Date: Monday, 22 Jan 96 9:31:45 EST Subject: Cross-Dressing The study of cross-dressing that Susan Mather refers to in SHK 6.0952 is Marjorie Garber's _Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety_, reprinted 1993 by HarperCollins, ISBN 0-06-097524-5, $17.50. David J. Knauer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Monday, 22 Jan 1996 12:52:07 -0600 (CST) Subject: Cross-Dressing I have lost track of the person who was doing something with cross-dressing. Just a reminder - don't neglect Cleopatra and Antony. I believe there were some explanatory notes in *Domination and Defiance* by Diane Elizabeth Dreher, (Kentucky: The University Press, 1986). I found it very helpful on a paper I did on Elizabethan Women. By the way, there were actualy cases of cross-dressing - Lady Arabella in Violet Wilson's *Society Women of Shakespeare's Time* (NY/London: Kennikat Press, 1924, 1970). Hope this helps a bit. Kitty Kendrick NEIU - Chicago, Illinois ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 09:15:57 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0055 Re: "Paon" Roet; Development of Individualism Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0055. Tuesday, 23 January 1996. (1) From: David Hale Date: Monday, 22 Jan 96 13:29:01 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0053 Qs: Payne Roet (2) From: Jonathan Sawday Date: Monday, 22 Jan 1996 19:26:53 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0951 Re: Development of Individualism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Hale Date: Monday, 22 Jan 96 13:29:01 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0053 Qs: Payne Roet Reply to Peter Herman. Sir Gilles "Paon" Roet was the father of Chaucer's wife, Phillipa, and Katherine Swynford, mistess and third wife of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. Katherine doesn't show up in Shakespeare's "Richard II," but she could have. Her third son, John Beaufort, earl of Somerset, is the means which links Henry Tudor to the House of Lancaster. So there is a connection between Chaucer and the Tudors, but not a blood line. Incidentally, one of Chaucer's direct heirs, John de la Pole, earl of Lincoln, designated heir to Richard III, but Bosworth ended that possibility. The above is from the Riverside editions of Chaucer and Shakespeare. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Sawday Date: Monday, 22 Jan 1996 19:26:53 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0951 Re: Development of Individualism `Stephanie Hughes' writes (in defence of Stephanie Hughes): ...since stone age communities are still in existence here and there in the world, it should be all right to speak of them in the present as well as the past... I don't think so. `Stone age communities' have never existed in the world. The problem is not with the `stone' or the `community' but with idea of `age' as representative of epoch. To argue that those communities who deploy eolithic technology (flints, stones, etc., which groups must also include ourselves to a surpising extent, who vigorously search for and deploy stone resources, as any road developer will inform us) are `stone age communities' is to place them in a subordinate position to a western paradigm of technology, and ignores the abilities of such groups (then or now) to develop appropriate technology based on their own exploitation of available resources. This isn't (though it may, at first, appear so) a PC-based observation. To argue for the existence (either in the past or now) of `stone age communities' is to continue a 19th century model of `developmentalism': all human communities (other than our own) are simply at different stages of `progress', whose dizzy summit we (alone) inhabit. That model of thinking was endlessly and unthinkingly deployed by anthropologists both before and after Darwin. It lead (directly) in Europe to the categorization of different human groups as having arrived at different stages on the evolutionary trail. From that, it didn't take long for the heady cocktail of perceived `racial' difference, mixed with the observation of different technological attributes, to produce the idea of `primitivism', or even the existence of the `proto-human' (aka as the `sub-human'). You can see where this tends.... This not, by the way, to attempt to (absurdly) deny the existence of technological change, or even the development of new technologies. But the simultaneous presence of different human groups using different technologies should not be the means by which those groups are then defined. As an example, and on a personal note, I well remember arriving in my first acadaemic job, in the South of Ireland, being greeted by a US postgrad with the words `Welcome to the 19th century': he and I (or so he assumed) inhabited the 20th century, while the Irish taxpayer (who was picking up the bill on our behalf) did not. This categorization was possible because (as he explained to me, fresh off the boat as I was) in Ireland there were almost no motorways, and some people lived in communities where access to video-rentals, McDonalds, etc. was difficult. Of course, the fact that the British have always (secretly) believed that their closest western neighbours inhabited a different century has been instrumental in forging our present, and unique, special relationship. For a nice renaissance example of this line of thinking, see _The Faerie Queene_ Bk VI, or Spenser's `View of the present State of Ireland' where the attribution of `primitive' behaviour to another culture allows Spenser to conclude that genocide is (proably) the means by which Ireland can be reduced to fealty to the English monarch: a set of attitudes which I'm sure the historical Shakespeare would have shared. This last speculation is a fairly desperate attempt to get back to Shakespeare, since what all this has to do with Shakespeare I can hardly conceive...as much to do with the Stratfordian as the Cartesian fish who have also (memorably) appeared in this thread, I suppose. Jonathan Sawday University of Southampton, ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 09:18:32 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0056 CFA: TEACHING JUDITH SHAKESPEARE Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0056. Tuesday, 23 January 1996. From: Sara Jayne Steen Date: Monday, 22 Jan 1996 16:48:49 -0500 Subject: Call for Abstracts Abstracts for Papers on the Topic TEACHING JUDITH SHAKESPEARE for a special session to be proposed for the 1996 MLA meeting in Washington, D.C. Papers might address approaches to and/or implications of teaching 16th- and/or 17-century women writers in conjunction with Shakespeare. Papers may, for example, suggest innovative reconfigurations of courses, examine methods of pairing writings by Shakespeare and by women such as Aemelia Lanyer and Isabella Whitney, and/or outline entirely new courses that emerge when women's writing joins Shakespeare's as part of our literary and cultural discussions. Please send abstracts by 1 March 1996 to Elizabeth Hageman Department of English University of New Hampshire Durham, New Hampshire 03824 ehageman@christa.unh.edu and Sara Jayne Steen Department of English Montana State University Bozeman, Montana 59717 uenss@newton.math.montana.edu e-mail inquiries welcome ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 09:21:20 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0057 John Donne Society Conference Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0057. Tuesday, 23 January 1996. From: Joanne Woolway Date: Monday, 22 Jan 1996 21:14:55 +0000 Subject: Donne Conference [This announcement was originally posted on FICINO. --HMC] This announcement will be cross-posted; please excuse duplication. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The eleventh John Donne Society Conference will be taking place on February 15-17th at the University of Southern Mississippi. Invited speakers include Helen Wilcox, Bryan N.S. Gooch, and Achsah Guibbory. The conference program can be found in Interactive EMLS, available on the World Wide Web at http://unixg.ubc.ca:7001/0/e-sources/emls/emlshome.html Then follow the quicklinks to iEMLS iEMLS acts as a forum for publication of conference information and proceedings, as well as key-note speeches, other pre-publication pieces and considered scholarly responses to this work. If you would like to publicize a conference through iEMLS or post a program or proceedings, please contact me. Material can be sent on disk in ASCII or Wordperfect format or via e-mail to me at Oriel College, Oxford, OX1 4EW, England or emls@sable.ox.ac.uk Thanks, Joanne Woolway Associate Editor, EMLS ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 09:29:31 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0058 Q: Tuition Waivers: NOT Related to Shakespeare Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0058. Tuesday, 23 January 1996. From: Al Cacicedo Date: Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 0:36:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Q: Tuition Waivers: NOT Related to Shakespeare] [Editor's Note: Please respond directly to Al Cacicedo and NOT to SHAKSPER. --HMC] Recently the administration of my school has sought to tighten control over workers by limiting the benefit of tuition waivers for all courses to staff members, who hitherto had enjoyed the benefit without any hint of overuse. The current rule is that staff can take courses for free 1) only in the evening division; 2) only if the course is "work-related"; and 3) only if the Vice President for Administration and Finance (catch the title inflation!) approves. The VP's understanding (put in writing) is that faculty supervisors of staff cannot be trusted to pass judgment on requests for the benefit because faculty are not capable of judging what is in the best interest of the college. To help us deal with this intolerable situation, I would like two bits of information: 1) At your institution, are staff allowed to take whatever courses they want? 2) At your institution, by whom is the decision to allow staff to take courses made? Yours, Al Cacicedo (alc@joe.alb.edu) Albright College ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 09:32:17 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0059 Graduate Fellowship Awards Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0059. Tuesday, 23 January 1996. From: Laura Blanchard Date: Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 07:22:23 -0500 Subject: [Graduate Fellowship Awards] The American Branch of the Richard III Society is pleased to announce the availability of one or more William B. Schallek Memorial Graduate Fellowship Awards for the 1996-97 academic year. The awards, in the amount of $500 or multiples thereof, up to a maximum of $2,000, are granted to graduate students pursuing research topics relating to late fifteenth-century English history and culture. Preference is given to Ph.D. candidates involved in researching/writing their dissertations. Deadline for applications is February 28: judging is by a panel including Lorraine Attreed, History, Holy Cross College; Barbara A. Hanawalt, History, University of Minnesota; Morris G. McGee, English (emeritus), Montclair State University; Shelley A. Sinclair, History, Southern Utah University; and Charles T. Wood, Histoyr and Comparative Literature, Dartmouth College. Complete details, including a full list of past recipients and their topics, guidelines, eligibility requirements, and a downloadable application form, are available at the Society's World Wide Web site: http://www.webcom.com/blanchrd/gateway.html To be mailed an application form and guidelines, send your surface mail address to me. Regards, Laura Blanchard Richard III Society lblanchard@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 08:29:45 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0060 Re: Development of Individualism Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0060. Wednesday, 24 January 1996. (1) From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 14:31:51 -0500 Subj: Development of Individualism (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 16:09:31 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Development of Individualism (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 15:32:17 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0037 Re: Development of Individualism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 14:31:51 -0500 Subject: Development of Individualism Jonathan Sawday's comments (SHK 7.0055), including a (to me) obscure reference to past dialogues on Cartesian fish, prompt me to attempt again to convey this message on this thread: 1) When Gertrude expresses doubt about the player queen's sincerity, if not veracity, she says (I think): "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." 2) If I remember what I learned when I studied Russian, "methinks" is a reflexive construction, a not uncommon grammatical type I would suppose, more common in earlier English than modern. 3) DeCartes wrote, "Cogito, ergo sum" (I have no idea how to punctuate this). 4) What happens to our notion of self, individuality, etc. if we imagine this most recognizable Cartesian claim translated as "Methinks I am"--or some such Bottomian phrase? 5) Is there any good work out there about the evolution of English and its effects on the self in language? (I vaguely remember a job candidate coming to my alma mater and discussing the introduction of "was now" into the novel, but I can't remember any conclusions or speculations that might be germaine.) 6) BTW, while I do not share the reverence for Shakespeare and everything Shakespearean that is common on this list, I must question Jonathan Sawday's great confidence that "the historical Shakespeare" must have shared Spenser's genocidal contempt for the Irish. The evidence seems to me, at best, insufficient with regard to Shakespeare in particular, and the view seems to me hardly to have been universal (though perhaps nearly so) in early modern England. Curiously, --Chris Fassler Winthrop University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 16:09:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Development of Individualism Jonathan Sawday; Thanks for the interesting response to my reference to "stone age" communities. I agree with everything you said. In my use of the term I was (hopefully) not exhibiting developmental snobbery. That I feel no such snobbery I try to express by putting quotes around the term "civilization". I am a believer in the symbol of the snake eating its own tail (alas, can't draw it here) for the "progress" of human development. What we gain at the head we lose at the tail. Penelope's web is another good image. What is woven at one end is unravelled at the other, and so on and on, for eternity. We can learn a great deal from stone age communities, not only tips on how to live more happily and less frantically in the present, but as a guide to what we once were. (I use the term "stone age community", but what I really mean is communities that have changed minimally since the stone age in comparison with ours.) My original point was that the concept of "individualism" arises out of a sense of separateness that only comes to a society when it fragments at a certain stage of "civilization," and that this "stage" repeats as the level of "civilization" rises and falls with the rise and fall of cultures. The ancient Greeks had this concept, so did the Romans. With the fall of the Roman empire and the subsequent return to a less "civilized" culture, this concept disappeared, then rose again towards the end of the renaissance, as society again reached the level of fragmentation. Of course I could be altogether in left field on this, but this was my point. You're right, we're way off the track of Shakespeare here. Didn't it start with Jesus Cora commenting on a possible connection between the soliloquies and a rise in a sense of the individual? Stephanie Hughes (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 15:32:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0037 Re: Development of Individualism Robert Appelbaum writes (cold and lonely): >Recent work by Carol Walker Bynum (sorry, but I don't have the title in front >of me) shows that there was in fact an idiosyncratic valuation of the self or >the person in Christian culture prior to the Renaissance, especially with >regard to a doctrine of the individual body -- that body which was held to be >in an essential attachment to the immortal soul in life and death alike. We >will not find this doctrine, however, in (say) Confucian culture; nor will we >find it in Proust, or in most of the songs that Madonna sings about her >personae. Let me suggest that he's looking in the wrong place. Ask a Jehovah's Witness about the connection of the soul with the body, and you will get an answer that's straight out of John Milton who held that there was no soul apart from the body (to put it crudely). The tradition survives, make of it what you will. Of course, one should make as many distinctions as possible, and remain as skeptical as one may -- about everything, including changes in the way "we" perceive ourselves, the way technology affects individualism, and so on. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 08:46:24 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0061 Re: Roet; Othello Screenplay; RSC *MND*; Cross-Dressing Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0061. Wednesday, 24 January 1996. (1) From: Moray McConnachie Date: Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 15:03:11 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0953 Qs: Payne Roet (2) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 23 Jan 96 09:46:16 -0600 Subj: Othello Screenplay Online (3) From: Heather Stephenson Date: Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 10:51:56 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: RSC's Midsummer ND (4) From: Susan Mather Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 00:40:30 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0054 Re: Cross-Dressing (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Moray McConnachie Date: Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 15:03:11 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0953 Qs: Payne Roet I too saw these claims in Speght's edition. However, I don't see much incredible about it. If you go far enough back it is quite possible to find common ancestors: remember that Speght is only tracing the common line, not the complete thing. Of course, Speght may have invented the whole thing, as you imply. But that doesn't mean he was wrong. I'm afraid I didn't find out who Payne Roet was either, but I only looked in the most cursory fashion. I assumed that Roet would be spent Rowett in the usual modern sources. Yours, Moray McConnachie (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 23 Jan 96 09:46:16 -0600 Subject: Othello screenplay online The Castle Rock website for the new film version of *Othello* has just added the screenplay to their site. The URL is http://othello.guide.com. The homepage indicates that they plan to continue to add information to the site over time. Happy surfing! Chris Gordon University of Minnesota (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Heather Stephenson Date: Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 10:51:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: RSC's Midsummer ND Can anyone tell me if the original cast is in the travelling production of the RSC's Midsummer Night's Dream? I saw the opening night performance in Stratford two years ago, and have a profound admiration of Gonet's and Barrett's talents, as well as a very unscholarly crush on Stephens. (However, I completely agree with whomever it was who suggested that this production felt like a "warm-up" for the actors' larger roles that season). Thanks! Heather Stephenson Georgetown University (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 00:40:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0054 Re: Cross-Dressing It's Susan Mather, again--Here's a list of three articles I found lying on my floor from last semester. One I used twice--Phyllis Rackin's "Androgyny, Mimesis, and the Marriage of the Boy Heroine on the English Renaissance Stage"--very good, and Dr. Rackin happens to be a member of this listserv. Jan Kott's article, "The Gender of Rosalind,"--I think in Theatre Quarterly--was very good--again, on androgyny. Finally, Jean E. Howard's "Crossdressing, The Theatre, and Gender Struggle in Early Modern England"--SQ. Wait! Laura Levine, "Men in Women's Clothing: Antitheatricality and Effeminization from 1579-1642." Criticism, 28 [1986], 121-43. Sorry, I can't find the actual bibliography.-- Sketches by Suz ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 08:53:44 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0062. Wednesday, 24 January 1996. From: Eric Armstrong Date: Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 18:57:01 -0500 Subject: The Sonnets. All of 'em Hi everyone, I am dreaming of doing a performance of ALL the sonnets in one evening. Has anyone ever seen this done? I am aware that Simon Callow in _Being An Actor_ tells how he did the complete sonnets based on some new numbering that had just been published. I am wondering how long it tends to take and how interesting it is (Sorry - its got to be brilliant - its Shakespeare, isn't it?).I am also wondering if anyone who has any particular interest in the sonnets might share anything juicy and"new" or "hot" about them. I have been reading them from Booth. Anyone else who I should really delve into? Why? (I really like the Booth). If there are too many for one night, anyone got any suggestions as to which ones to do to make a well rounded theatrical evening? I must admit that I am mildly terrified by the thought of this undertaking (which seems almost a good enough reason in itself). Hope to hear some good debate on this one, Eric P.S. Does anyone know Jean-Christophe Mayer (in France) 's email address? [Editor's Note: Please respond privately to the above e-mail address request. --HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 09:02:54 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0063 Re: The Sonnets. All of 'em Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0063. Thursday, 25 January 1996. (1) From: Nina Rulon-Miller Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 96 09:59:48 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em (2) From: Ted Nellen Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 11:09:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em (3) From: Joe Shea Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 07:13:21 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em (4) From: Terry Ross Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 10:41:41 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em (5) From: Michael Saenger Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 12:46:41 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets, V & A (6) From: Nora Kreimer Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 19:29:04 ARG Subj: Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em (7) From: Catherine Fitzmaurice Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 23:14:44 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nina Rulon-Miller Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 96 09:59:48 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em For Eric Armstrong on the Sonnets: For "hot" and "new" (new since Booth, at any rate) work on the Sonnets, try Joseph Pequigney's _Such Is My Love: A Study of Shakespeare's Sonnets_, U Chicago P, 1985. Very controversial homoerotic interpretation. I'd be interested to hear others' responses to this book. I found it convincing. Nina Rulon-Miller rulonmil@tscvm.trenton.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ted Nellen Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 11:09:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em Many years ago 1986 I read a neat book by G Hammond titled The Reader and Shakespeare's young man sonnets. Then I had a high school Shakespeare class perform, read, present the sonnets a la Spoon River Anthology. Different methods of presentation included traditional and rap and chorus. Some read in the traditional style, some leaned towards a rap presentaiton which worked quite well and then some sang in a chorus type presentaiton. I still have some of my colleagues speak of how successful it was. The kids absolutely loved it. Now that is high school and it was not intended for a scholarly audience. I was looking to make Shakespeare approachable to high school kids. It worked and it was actually fun. Cheers, Ted (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Shea Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 07:13:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em I love the sonnets, and have done some of them in readings on manyt occasions over the past 30 years. I would say that they require a minute each, and a five-second pause. You then have a roughly three-hour performance, which is not out of line with expectations for an evening at the theater. They offer any audience that can understand them a great deal, and their rhythm and pacing can present enromous opportunities for creative expression. A telling performance would also sense Shakespeare's exhaustion as a poet in this form when he begins to repeat himself, and acknowledge that even the greatest mind in literary history had limits. Best, Joe Shea (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry Ross Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 10:41:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em The sonnets taken together are 2155 lines--about as long as one of the short plays (between "A Midsummer Night's Dream" and "Two Gentlemen of Verona" in length). It should take you two hours or so. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 12:46:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets, V & A I have not seen the sonnets performed, but I have seen Venus and Adonis staged, in Glasgow, 1992. It was very interesting, and I think it was well worth a try. The interesting thing, for me, is that when I saw Shakespeare's non-dramatic work on stage it made me long for the flat page and the flexible tones it creates, whereas we are all very accustomed to having the inverse feeling; reading a play and longing for a sense of its dramatic impact. For instance, it was impossible to laugh at either Adonis or Venus, because it came off as a melencholy love tragedy. Don't get me wrong; I would love to see, by its notable absense, what we're missing by staging poetry. (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nora Kreimer Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 19:29:04 ARG Subject: Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em I think that having the complete sequence of the sonnets is a brilliant idea. I have taught several postgraduate courses and held seminars, when I wouldn't have thought of eliminating one. I think that the fundamental issue concerning the complete 154 sonnets is to keep the sequence of the Q of 1609, because, when you do, a wonderful drama emerges. I feel that the autobiographical approach to the sonnets is the only way. Naturally, there will be others, who will hold exactly the opposite view. There is a book I'm very fond of quoting, which my students and I find very useful. It's a relatively oldish one, but irreplaceable in my eyes: Robert Giroux, 1982, THE BOOK KNOWN AS Q: A CONSIDERATION OF SHAKESPEARE'S SONNETS, A Vintage Book, USA. This edition 1983. What I find so interesting about this work is a division of the traditional sequence into 12 subgroups, occasionally linking sonnets that antiphonally echo one another, or follow up an idea into one another, etc. Hope you find this info useful. If you need further comments, don't hesitate to contact me. Nora Kreimer Ugarteche 2883 1A 1425 Buenos Aires Argentina Voice: 801-3486 Internet: norkre@einstein.ba.ar (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Catherine Fitzmaurice Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 23:14:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em Eric, I did a compilation of 39 sonnets in Los Angeles with the late Duncan (Bill) Ross and the late Paul Shenar which I chose, ordered, directed, and acted with them in. It took about an hour, and was also broadcast on KPFK. Ask me if you want more details. Catherine Fitzmaurice cfk@udel.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 09:08:14 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0064 Re: Payne Roet Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0064. Thursday, 25 January 1996. (1) From: Peter Herman Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 08:55:18 -0500 Subj: Re: Payne Roet (2) From: Valerie Gager Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 13:25:00 -0700 Subj: Payne Roet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Herman Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 08:55:18 -0500 Subject: Re: Payne Roet Thanks to everyone for their help on this topic. Your information significantly helped and I'm deeply appreciative for your contributions. Peter C. Herman Dept. of English GSU (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Valerie Gager Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 13:25:00 -0700 Subject: Payne Roet To supplement the information provided by David Hale in his response to Peter Herman's query, a good source of further background on Sir Gilles de Roet (`Paon' means `usher') and his four children is Donald K. Howard's *Chaucer: His Life, His Works, His World* (New York: Fawcett, 1987). Howard also identifies more connections between the Chaucer family and John of Gaunt, including the rumour that Thomas Chaucer was actually John of Gaunt's bastard son by Philippa Roet, Geoffrey Chaucer's wife (p. 94). Perhaps the family tree in Speght's sixteenth-century edition represents a variation on `Tudor myth'-making. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 09:17:49 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0065 Related to Development of Individualism Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0065. Thursday, 25 January 1996. (1) From: Ron Macdonald Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 09:36:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Methinks (2) From: Jonathan Sawday Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 17:20:35 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0060 Re: Development of Individualism (3) From: Chris Ivic Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 21:07:05 -0500 (EST) Subj: [Shakespeare and the Irish] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Macdonald Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 09:36:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Methinks Chris Fassler's characterization of "methinks" as a "reflexive construction" isn't quite right: it's actually an impersonal construction with an unexpressed subject and indirect object meaning "it seems to me." "Thinks" here (which, incidentally, must be third person singular present-- note the "s" inflection) is not our familiar verb meaning "to conceive in the mind," but rather the archaic verb meaning "to seem," "to appear," from the Old English _thyncan_, a verb related to but distinct from _thencan_, the source of our common modern verb. The "e" in "methinks" should probably be pronounced as an unaccented schwa-glide, "muhTHINKS," rather than as a fully vocalized long "e," which tends to make the phrase sound like a bad caricature of a Native American in a Hollywood western. --Ron Macdonald (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Sawday Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 17:20:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0060 Re: Development of Individualism My apologies to Chris Fassler. The obscure reference to `Cartesian Fish' in my last posting, was an allusion to the colleague who (at an earlier point in this discussion) had deduced the possibility of individual fish within a shoal of the creatures possessing a sense of `individuality', since one could observe them struggling to evade being eaten, or hunting for food. I believe that there are various unicellular forms of life which move in ways suggestive of the possession of intent, but I doubt we would wish to attribute to them a reasoning power of the kind outlined by Descartes...can we then infer from an observed motion a power of the will (in Cartesian terms) or the intellect? Since Shakespearian characters possess neither of these attributes (will or intellect) can we usefully argue for the presence or absence of `individuality' in a given epoch, based on the evidence of artistic representation, as Burckhardt attempted? Chis Fassler writes `Descartes wrote "cogito, ergo sum"' and then he interestingly speculates `What happens to our notion of self, individuality, etc. if we imagine this...claim translated as "Methinks I am" -- or some such Bottomian phrase.' What indeed? But I don't think Descartes did write this, or at least not in the first instance. His first formulation of the Cogito is, I believe: "Je pense, donc je suis", later translated (by Descartes) as the more elegant "Cogito ergo sum". The problem with Descartes' own translation is that it misses the double use of the `I' which is suggested in the French version. The only way in which the Latin version of the Cogito can be made to make sense in English, within the context of the overall discussion, is to return to the French, and translate the phrase using the continuous present, thus: `I am thinking, therefore I exist' - a sense loosely cognate with a phrase such as `Only whilst I am thinking, am I able to be assured of the consciousness of my on existence'. This is important to the distinction between thinking and existence which Descartes is intent on exploring, since he sees consciousness of existence as _momentary_, in comparison to the day to day business of carrying on with unreflecting existing. For most of our lives, he argues, we are operating in a fairly machine-like (fish-like?) way, only when we pause to reflect on the process of thought, can we be convinced that we are _not_ machines (or fish). The argument becomes more difficult of course with cats and dogs (let alone chimps), but certainly it allowed the intellectual construction of the monstrous `L'homme machine' in the later 17th cenury by La Mettrie et al. In an earlier posting, I tried to suggest how this might impact on our use of the Shakespearian soliloquy in helping us to understand the idea of individuality. Shakespeare and his contemporaries, deploying the soliloquy form in the later 16th cent. had anticipated the cartesian problem. They had found a means, in representation, to offer the convincing (but momentary) _illusion_ that thought-processes were in operation, when, of course, they weren't. A Shakespearian `character' possesses the same ability to reason as does the unicellular creatures alluded to earlier. Since I could go on about this _ad nauseam_ all day, I shall now indulge in shameless self-advertising (as we are now able) and refer participants in this discussion to an essay on this topic which I have written, entitled `Self and Selfhood in the Seventeenth Century' to appear in Roy Porter (ed.), _The Making of the Modern Self_ (Routledge, 1996). Since the piece hasn't appeared yet, but this seems to be a hot topic, if anyone is anxious to have a copy pre-publication, then they are invited to drop me a line privately. You may imagine me blushing at this point. On the question of Shakespeare and genocide, I don't have that much confidence. But the author of _Henry V_ or _Coriolanus_ seems to me to be more than likely to have shared the cultural assumptions of a contemporary who, quite logically (from the contemporary point of view of the English polity in the late 16th cent), had argued for a policy of genocide. What do other people think? Needless to say, I do not endorse etc etc. Jonathan Sawday University of Southampton (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ivic Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 21:07:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Shakespeare and the Irish] On Wed, 24 Jan 1996, Chris Fassler wrote: >6) BTW, while I do not share the reverence for Shakespeare and everything >Shakespearean that is common on this list, I must question Jonathan Sawday's >great confidence that "the historical Shakespeare" must have shared Spenser's >genocidal contempt for the Irish. The evidence seems to me, at best, >insufficient with regard to Shakespeare in particular, and the view seems to me >hardly to have been universal (though perhaps nearly so) in early modern >England. We do have more "evidence" of Spenser's representations of Ireland than we do of Shakespeare's, for Spenser wrote at length about Ireland. But I don't think we have "insufficient" evidence of Shakespeare's view of "Brother Ireland," to borrow a phrase from the Queen of France in _Henry V_. Dromio S., for instance, figures Ireland as a wasteland: when asked "In what part of her body stands Ireland?" he responds, "Marry, sir, in her buttocks. I found it out by the bogs" (3.2.116-8). One may choose to dismiss this as nothing more than a harmless joke, but there's nothing funny about the desire to see Essex, or Mountjoy, "from Ireland coming / Bringing rebellion broached on his sword" (_Henry V_ Chor.5.32-3). Chris Ivic Univ. of Western Ontario ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 09:23:03 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0066 Re: Cross-Dressing Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0066. Thursday, 25 January 1996. (1) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 08:13:36 -1000 Subj: Re: Cross-Dressing (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 18:56:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Cross Dressing (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 08:13:36 -1000 Subject: Re: Cross-Dressing To All you Helpful Folk; Thank you so much for your swift and abundant responses to my request for information on cross-dressing. It is daunting to know (as opposed to just suspecting) that there is so much information out there, but I'm looking forward to diving in. If there are any further responses I'll be happy to receive them privately or through the list as you see fit. Thanks again, Shirley Kagan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 18:56:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Cross Dressing Shirley Kagan; A most rewarding book that has everything to do with this topic is "Homosexual Desire in Shakespeare's England" by Bruce R. Smith, which looks intelligently at the sexual reality behind the gender bending and cross dressing in Shakespeare, and other popular writers of the time. It's very well written and the scholarship is excellent. (I have Christine Mack Gordon of this list to thank for posting this title here a couple of months ago.) A suggestion: read the comedies you mentioned while keeping in mind the fact that the roles are all being played by men. When we see Cesario in Twelfth Night, we see a woman playing a man. When Shakespeare's audiences saw this play, they saw in Cesario, not a girl in boy's clothing, but a youth of twelve to fourteen working through romantic involvements with two older men (The Captain and Orsino) and an older woman (Olivia). The fiction of the play asks us to believe that a girl is cross dressing through the heart of the play, and that is the reality we see today, but in Shakespeare's time, the reality worked at cross purposes to the fiction, for the reality was that the actor was cross dressing only at the beginning and the end of the play. Fraser's biography of "Mary Queen of Scots" said that Mary, who was very tall, and very slender in her youth, used to go out with her ladies-in-waiting, all of them dressed like men, and mingle with the crowds. Cross dressing was acceptable in the English renaissance theater in a way it isn't with us today, because the deepest and most compelling source of the renaissance theater was the revels of folk tradition, the mumming and "disguising" that took place at all festival seasons, the winter and summer solstices and numerous other lesser "pagan" and Church holidays. Although the disguises took many forms, the primary one seems to have been gender switching, with men wearing women's clothes and women weaing men's clothing; in poor communities, the clothing of their own family members; among the nobility, fabulous costumes designed by artists. I believe that all the gender switching roles were written as Court entertainments for one or another of these festival times. Good luck with your thesis. It's a great topic. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 09:27:24 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0067 Qs: Mysticism; Loreena McKennitt Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0067. Thursday, 25 January 1996. (1) From: Susan Mather Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 00:47:45 -0500 (EST) Subj: [Mysticism] (2) From: Susan Mather Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 01:14:01 -0500 (EST) Subj: Loreena McKennitt (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 00:47:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Mysticism] I have a new problem. I wanted to a paper on Agnes Beaumont and St. John of the Cross and I was told that I would have to do some research into mysticism and medieval religious poetry. I have already been given the name of W. H. Auden. Dr. Camden, a professor here at Kent State, has written a very good book on Agnes Beaumont's "Persecutions". I don't really want to abandon this topic--although, I may have to for I am in a Dickens' class which requires we read nine novels of his this semester. I realize I cannot possibly be expected to know everything there is to know on mysticism but, I'd rather be lead to a safer path to begin research if at all possible. Let me know! (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 01:14:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Loreena McKennitt Just a quick question for the list-- I have been told that Canadian singer, Loreena McKennitt, has a home page. I was hoping that someone might know how I can find information about this--being new to this "computer stuff." McKennitt is known for taking lyrics from by-gone days of yore and putting them to some of the most stirring melodies. Because of her studies, she has given me new insights into Shakespeare--into medieval and renaissance literature. This recent adventure she started me on was into the poem I asked about before, St John of the Cross's "Dark Night of the Soul." Her previous album, "The Mask and Mirror" in itself is a study and I would like to find out more about its conception. Please help if you can-- Thanks, Susan Mather (smather@phoenix.kent.edu) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 09:31:11 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0068 Announcement: The Jew in Early English Literature Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0068. Thursday, 25 January 1996. From: Nina Rulon-Miller Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 96 09:51:56 EST Subject: The Jew in Early English Literature This crossed my desk: on the offchance you haven't seen it yet, here it is. I'm sure Prof. Spector would have no objection to your cross-posting this to relevant lists, for scholars who might be interested in this seminar. ******************************************************************************* A 1996 NEH Summer Seminar for College Teaching: ABSENCE AND PRESENCE: THE JEW IN EARLY ENGLISH LITERATURE. Director: Stephen Spector Location: SUNY, Stony Brook Dates: June 10 - July 26, 1996 "Among the most profound and urgent mysteries of human experience is intolerance. This Seminar will provide a platform for analyzing prejudice toward the Jew in early English literature, principally in Chaucer, the medieval drama, Marlowe, and Shakespeare. In so doing, it will offer a theoretical model for exploring the perception of the Other and the dynamics of prejudice in diverse times and cultures. We shall address two key themes: how enmity can be directed toward a people historically absent, yet forcefully present in the literary imagination; and how literature conveying a message of mercy and love can accommodate hatred. "Applications are invited from college teachers in departments that do not grant the Ph.D., and from independent scholars. The Seminar should interest specialists in literature, history, theology, Judaica, art history, psychology, and other relevant disciplines. Participants will receive stipends of $3600. For further information, please write to Professor Stephen Spector, Department of English, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, Tel. (516) 632-7383. Application deadline: March 1, 1996." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 09:32:53 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0069 RSC *Dream* Web Site Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0069. Thursday, 25 January 1996. From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 96 16:16:56 -0600 Subject: SHK 0061: RSC's Dream This web site has information about the production that's currently on tour: http://www.bwaytheatresf.com/midsRSChist.html Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 15:02:25 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0070 Re: Related to Development of Individualism Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0070. Friday, 26 January 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 13:11:01 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0060 Re: Development of Individualism (2) From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 14:52:11 -0500 Subj: Development of Individualism (3) From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 15:29:10 -0500 Subj: Shakespeare and the Irish (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 16:56:16 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0065 Related to Development of Individualism (5) From: Michael Yogev Date: Friday, 26 Jan 1996 17:18:28 +0200 (WET) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0055 Re: Development of Individualism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 13:11:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0060 Re: Development of Individualism I wonder if part of our problem with "individualism" is our assumption -- and I do believe that it is our unspoken hypothesis -- that the presentation of the individual has a direct and ascertainble relationship to our perception of ourselves as individuals. We tend to believe, I suggest, that the presentation of the individual, say, in 13th century painting has a direct correlation with the way 13th century people saw themselves. This seems intuitively correct, doesn't it? But I'm not at all sure that this is correct. Are artist's "periods" really correlative to the artist's perception of her or his world and her or his self? Did Picasso think of himself as a cube? Did Shakespeare basically think of his world as comic and historic in the 1590s, tragic at the turn of the century, and romantic about ten years later? Do we really believe that Shakespeare's plays are an index to life as it was experienced from 1590 to 1614? Would you make the the claim for Thomas Pynchon or John Grishman or Anne Byatt, et al., that she or he is such an index to the 20th century? There's a basic question here that we can trace back to Aristotle: what is the relationship of art to life? Until we come up with a satisfactory answer to this one, we certainly can't trace the grow of REAL individualism in art. All we can trace is the presentation of the individual. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 14:52:11 -0500 Subject: Development of Individualism I'm so gratified and embarrassed by the interesting responses to my post on "methinks" as a possible indication of a self with which we thinkers are not entirely familiar. And I've decided to break a personal rule and respond to a couple of them: Ron Macdonald graciously corrected my ignorance of grammar and pointed out that methinks is "an impersonal construction with an unexpressed subject and indirect object meaning 'it seems to me.'" I'm glad to have been corrected and to learn that "methinks" and "I think" are taken to have different origins. This is interesting in itself. Still, I think the etymology begs the question: to my mind (and what does an expression like that tell about my self?) the conjunction of "methinks" and "I" remains a remarkable one, as in Bottom's speech. "Methought I was--there is no man can tell what. Methought I was--and methought I had--but man is but a patched fool if he will offer to say what methought I had." There remains here what seems a peculiary third person distance between what "methought" ("it seemed, it appeared *to me*") and that repetitive first person "I was" and "I had." Jonathan Sawday adds to my curiosity and uncertainty by pointing out that Descartes first wrote (probably) "Je pense, donc je suis," before translating it as "Cogito ergo sum." I have no idea at this point how to continue this discussion, but methinks I should have a look at Sawday's shamelessly self-advertised essay in the forthcoming _The Making of the Modern Self_. (I am) Yours, --Chris Fassler (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 15:29:10 -0500 Subject: Shakespeare and the Irish Lord help me, I'm clogging your mail twice on the same day *and* appearing to defend the honor and reputation of Shakespeare at the same time. Jonathan Sawday (hello again) writes, "the author of _Henry V_ or _Coriolanus_ seems to me to be more than likely to have shared the cultural assumptions of a contemporary who . . . had argued for a policy of genocide." While *imagining* genocide and genocidal leaders is probably necessary for *arguing for* (and committing) genocide, I would contend that it is not the same thing, nor even sufficient. As for _Coriolanus_, North's translation of Plutarch's _Lives_ seems to me much more accepting and promoting of genocidal notions than is the play that is presumably based on it. Likely that the play's producers shared Spenser's genocidal contempt?--yes. More than likely?--I can't agree. Chris Ivic presents some indications of "Shakespeare's view of 'Brother Ireland,'" none of which I would care to dismiss "as nothing more than a harmless joke." Still, however distasteful it may be and however necessary for enabling genocide, imagining and representing anti-Irish feeling is usefully distinguishable from Spenser's final solution. That said, I am perfectly willing to entertain an argument that begins from the proposition that a given early modern English playwright was *likely* to have shared in the widespread contempt for Ireland and things Irish and that the same playwright may, as well, have thought genocide a reasonable approach to the Irish question. After all, colonialism sucks. Now I'll try to stay quiet while others engage or delete to their hearts' content. --Chris Fassler (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 16:56:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0065 Related to Development of Individualism Jonathan Sawday writes: >On the question of Shakespeare and genocide, I don't have that much >confidence. But the author of _Henry V_ or _Coriolanus_ seems to me to be more >than likely to have shared the cultural assumptions of a contemporary who, >quite logically (from the contemporary point of view of the English polity in >the late 16th cent), had argued for a policy of genocide. What do other people >think?> Since *Henry V* is an anti-war and anti-politician play, I don't see how it can be used to bolster the suggestion that Shakespeare shared any Tudor belief in genocide. Regarding *Coriolanus*, I remain puzzled as to how the right wing ever used this play as a propaganda piece without rewriting it entirely. At the beginning of the play, Coriolanus is hardy a character who will lead large groups of soldiers to perform genocide. When he finally does get an army that's willing to follow him (and Aufidius), he is persuaded not to press his advantage. And by whom? Provocatively, Bill Godshalk (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Friday, 26 Jan 1996 17:18:28 +0200 (WET) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0055 Re: Development of Individualism This is in response to the very apt comments on Stephanie Hughes's reference to "stone age communities" by Jonathan Sawday. I would simply like to add that, in connection with Shakespeare, Auden's astonishing and penetrating portrait of Caliban in his "Response to the Audience" from _The Sea and the Mirror_ is a wry, debunking, and often terrifyingly true response of the so-called subhuman to the equally so-called civilized and artistic world. For a more anthropologically verifiable and hence, for some, more authoritative response, see Benjamin Franklin's ironic and wonderful essay from 1784, "Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America" (Franklin's father married a women whose father had been a missionary teacher to the American Indians). What delights most in this essay is precisely the way the Native Americans regard, with amused and gentle condescension, the grand offer of the white authorities to "educate" the young Indian men at schools and colleges. Their respectful decline of that offer is couched precisely in terms of that enlightened education's total lack of relevance to their environment and its demands, and of the absence of the training in the skills and "technologies" that ARE appropriate to life in the wilderness. The Indian leaders then kindly return the offer, arguing that they will gladly take on the task of turning a few of the white Virginians' sons into "real Men". The rest of the essay is a fine and ironically-tinged study of cultural relativity. Worth having a look at. Michael Yogev University of Haifa ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 15:29:12 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0071 Course and CFPs Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0071. Friday, 26 January 1996. (1) From: Joanne Walen Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 11:46:01 -0500 Subj: Shakespeare at Stratford Course (2) From: Jesse D. Hurlbut Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 11:56:53 -0700 Subj: Call for papers: MLA (3) From: Thomas M. Costa Date: Friday, 26 Jan 96 10:05:55 EST Subj: CFP: Medieval-Renaissance Conference (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 11:46:01 -0500 Subject: Shakespeare at Stratford Course This is an update (first announced in August of '95) for a one-week course on Shakespeare in Stratford. Title: Shakespeare at Stratford: Text and Theater Dates: Mon-Sat, June 17-22, 1996. Arrival at guest houses expected on Sunday, June 16. Departure from Stratford guesthouses on Sunday, June 23 for home or further travel. Plays: *As You Like It* (Main stage), *Three Hours After Marriage (Pope, Gay, Arbuthnot--Swan), *Macbeth* (main stage), *The White Devil* (Webster--Swan), *Richard III* (Barbican--London), *The Herbal Bed* (A new play about Susannah Hall/Shakespeare, by Peter Whelan--whose play about Marlowe the RSC did a couple of years ago). The course is led by faculty from The Shakespeare Centre and the University of Birmingham, England, and is for Shakespeare enthusiasts, teachers, and students. The focus is on enhancing the understanding of text through performance, and classes will include lectures and discussions with faculty and RSC actors and artists about the current productions. Cost: 7 nights' lodging at Stratford guest houses w/breakfast and dinner included, visits to Shakespeare properties, all tickets to productions, coach to/from London are included for $795, airfare not included. This cost figure is based on the current exchange rate and an enrollment of 20 participants, so the price may vary slightly, up or down. For those interested in an application and more detailed information, you may e-mail me (shaxpur@aol.com) your address so I can send what you need. A timely response is recommended because of limited enrollment. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesse D. Hurlbut Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 11:56:53 -0700 Subject: Call for papers: MLA Call for papers Modern Language Association. Medieval and Renaissance Drama Society session: "From _Mankind_ to Marlowe: Thirty Years After." Papers on any topic related to David Bevington's work of thirty years ago. Abstracts via e-mail (Clopper@indiana.edu) or snail mail (Dept. of English, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405) by 15 February. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas M. Costa Date: Friday, 26 Jan 96 10:05:55 EST Subject: CFP: Medieval-Renaissance Conference CALL FOR PAPERS MEDIEVAL-RENAISSANCE CONFERENCE X SEPT. 19-21, 1996 CLINCH VALLEY COLLEGE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA KEYNOTE ADDRESS: WENDELL FRYE OF HARTWICK COLLEGE "THE 19TH CENTURY LOOKS AT THE MIDDLE AGES" Submissions on all topics of interest to Medieval and Renaissance scholars, including history, philosophy, literature, art, and music, are welcome. Please submit a brief abstract accompanied by a one-page vita to: Tom Costa Dept. of History and Philosophy Clinch Valley College Wise, Va. 24293 (540)328-0231 tmc5a@clinch.edu Deadline for submissions is June 1 1996. For further information, please contact Dr. Costa Please cross-post this message wherever applicable. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 15:35:38 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0072 Re: Cross-Dressing Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0072. Friday, 26 January 1996. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 21:28:30 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0066 Re: Cross-Dressing (2) From: Maria I Gonzalez Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 18:21:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0066 Re: Cross-Dressing (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 21:28:30 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0066 Re: Cross-Dressing Stephanie Hughes comments > Cross dressing was acceptable in the English renaissance theater in a way it > isn't with us today, because the deepest and most compelling source of the > renaissance theater was the revels of folk tradition, the mumming and > "disguising" that took place at all festival seasons, the winter and summer > solstices and numerous other lesser "pagan" and Church holidays. Whilst not wishing to deny the importance of the sources Hughes mentions, isn't the anxiety about cross dressing in Elizabethan plays indicative of a wider anxiety about social order, which makes this phenomenon quite distinct from medieval saturnalia? As regards "us today", isn't cross dressing still very much alive in popular entertainment? I'm thinking of the theatre of pantomime and also drag shows. The recent film 'Priscilla, Queen of the Desert' was hugely successful, and acceptable to many audiences and critics, despite its very overt misogyny. Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maria I Gonzalez Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 18:21:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0066 Re: Cross-Dressing Also, I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this to you but there is a great book written by Jean Howard entitled Stage and Social Struggle in Early Modern England which devotes a chapter to crossdressing and should have some interesting bibliography. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 15:39:02 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0073 Re: The Sonnets. All of 'em Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0073. Friday, 26 January 1996. (1) From: John Lee Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 19:36:37 GMT Subj: Re: The Sonnets. All of 'em (2) From: Richard Regan Date: Friday, 26 Jan 1996 03:26:36 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0063 Re: The Sonnets. All of 'em (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Lee Date: Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 19:36:37 GMT Subject: Re: The Sonnets. All of 'em John Kerrigan's edition of _Shakespeare's Sonnets_ is very good, both for its notes and introduction. (He comments acutely on the uses of repetition.) Part of Kerrigan's argument is that the Sonnets and 'A Lover's Complaint' are meant to be read together, the one refracting concerns of the other -- another example would by Spenser's _Amoretti and 'Epithalamion'_. It would seem to me that the change from the dense diary-entry sonnets to the more expansive rhythms of 'A Lover's Complaint' might be very interesting and illuminating if done in one performance. The anacreontics would mark the transition, perhaps. Joel Fineman argues that subjectivity was invented in the sonnets (cf individualism!). This is in his _Shakespeare's Perjured Eye_ (Berkeley: Univ of California Press, 1986). The argument is very ambitious and the book difficult to read. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Regan Date: Friday, 26 Jan 1996 03:26:36 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0063 Re: The Sonnets. All of 'em The proposal to present the Sonnets as a reading prompts me to ask if anyone has read an interpretation of Sonnet 94 as a poem with two speakers. It has occurred to me that the voice in the octave sounds like a haughty young man, while the sestet resonates with a reproof from an older voice. I would be grateful to hear of any critical voices on the subject. Richard Regan Fairfield University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 15:45:37 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0074 Fahrenheit's *Macbeth*; EMLS 1.3 (December 1995) Available Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0074. Friday, 26 January 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 09:45:45 -0500 (EST) Subj: Fahrenheit's *Macbeth* (2) From: R. G. Siemens Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 19:16:17 -0800 Subj: EMLS 1.3 (December 1995) Available (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 09:45:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: Fahrenheit's *Macbeth* Last Wednesday evening, I was privileged to be the fly on the wall at the first run-through of Fahrenheit Theatre Company's *Macbeth.* I was impressed by the intelligence and vigor of the production, its subtle insights and the director's interesting choices. Khristopher Lewin's Macbeth makes very neat connections with Richard III, and Marni Penning is excellent as both the seductive and the mad Lady Macbeth. Jasson Minadakis is the director. (I'll tell you more after the show opens.) The production opens at the Aronoff Center in Cincinnati on January 26 and runs until February 11. I'm going to see it more than once, and if you live close enough to Cincinnati to drive in for the show, don't miss this one. It's a winner. Call 513-241-SHOW for reservations. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: R. G. Siemens Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 19:16:17 -0800 Subject: EMLS 1.3 (December 1995) Available [This message will be cross-posted; please excuse duplication] EMLS 1.3 (December 1995) is Now Available. The journal is available now on the WWW via our home page, at http://unixg.ubc.ca:7001/0/e-sources/emls/emlshome.html An ASCII text version of EMLS 1.3 will be made available to our electronic mail subscribers and those readers using GOPHER. EMLS 1.3 will be available via GOPHER at edziza.arts.ubc.ca /english/EMLS To subscribe to the version of EMLS that is distributed through electronic mail, please send a message including your name, affiliation, and electronic mail address to Subscribe_EMLS@arts.ubc.ca ----- CONTENTS of EMLS 1.3 Front Matter: - Publishing Information, Journal Availability, Contact Addresses. - Editorial Group. - Submission Information. Foreword: - Evolution and Growth in On-line Resources for Early Modern Literary Studies. [1]. Raymond G. Siemens, University of British Columbia. Articles: - Article Abstracts / Résumés des Articles. - Marking his Place: Ben Jonson's Punctuation.[2]. Sara van den Berg, University of Washington, Seattle. - Protocols of Reading: Milton and Biography. [3]. J. Michael Vinovich, University of Toronto. - Shifting Signs: Increase Mather and the Comets of 1680 and 1682. [4]. Andrew P. Williams, North Carolina Central University. Note: - Milton and the Sexy Seals: A Peephole into the Horton Years. [5]. John K. Hale, University of Otago, NZ. Reviews: - John Donne. _The Variorum Edition of the Poetry of John Donne, Vol 6: The Anniversaries and the Epicedes and Obsequies_. Gen. Ed. Gary A. Stringer. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1995. [6]. Claude J. Summers, University of Michigan, Dearborn. - Lauren Silberman. _Forming Desire: Erotic Knowledge in Books III and IV of _The Faerie Queene. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: U of California P, 1995. [7]. David Lindley, University of Leeds. - Jean H. Hagstrum. _Esteem Enlivened by Desire: The Couple from Homer to Shakespeare._ Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1992. [8]. Paul G. Stanwood, University of British Columbia. - Alan C. Dessen. _Recovering Shakespeare's Theatrical Vocabulary._ Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. [9]. W.L. Godshalk, University of Cincinnati. - Kenneth J. Graham. _The Performance of Conviction: Plainness and Rhetoric in the Early English Renaissance._ Ithaca and London: Cornell UP, 1994. [10]. Shannon Murray, University of Prince Edward Island. - Mindele Anne Treip. _Allegorical Poetics and the Epic: The Renaissance Tradition to Paradise Lost._ Lexington, Kentucky: UP of Kentucky, 1994. [11]. C.D. Jago, University of British Columbia. - David Daniell. _William Tyndale: A Biography_. New Haven: Yale UP, 1994. [12]. Romuald I. Lakowski. - Timothy Raylor. _Cavaliers, Clubs, and Literary Culture: Sir John Mennes, James Smith, and the Order of the Fancy._ Newark: U of Delaware P, 1994. [13]. K.E. Patrick, Headington School, Oxford. - David L. Smith, Richard Strier, and David Bevington eds. _The Theatrical City: Culture, Theatre and Politics in London 1576-1649._ Cambridge UP, 1995. - Lawrence Manley. _Literature and Culture in Early Modern London._ Cambridge UP, 1995. [14]. Emma Smith, All Souls College, Oxford. - Reviewing Information, Books Received for Review, and Forthcoming Reviews. Readers' Forum: - Puritan Utopia in Herbert's Poetry: A Response to P.G. Stanwood's Affliction and Flight in Herbert's Poetry. [15]. Paul Moon, Auckland Institute of Technology. - Responses to articles, reviews, and notes appearing in this issue that are intended for the Readers' Forum may be sent to the Editor at EMLS@arts.ubc.ca. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Individual contributions which make this issue are copyright (c) 1995 by their authors, all rights reserved. Volume 1.3 as a whole is copyright (c) 1995 by _Early Modern Literary Studies_, all rights reserved, and may be used and shared in accordance with the fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law. Archiving and redistribution for profit, or republication of this text in any medium, requires the consent of the author and the editor of _EMLS_. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 15:55:12 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0075 Re: Mysticism; Shakespeare Films; Individualism Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0075. Friday, 26 January 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 16:33:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0067 Qs: Mysticism (2) From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Friday, 26 Jan 96 10:01 EST Subj: Comment on current/future films (3) From: W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Date: Friday, 26 Jan 1996 13:30:10 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Development of Individualism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 25 Jan 1996 16:33:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0067 Qs: Mysticism There is a print journal devoted to medieval mysticism, and the journal is called *Mystics* or *Mysticism* -- the precise title evades me, though I've held copies in my hand because my colleague Elizabeth Armstrong is the editor. I would imagine that journal would be publishing the latest research on this rather vast topic. I would think Aldous Huxley would come before W. H. Auden -- in this case, if not alphabetically! Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Friday, 26 Jan 96 10:01 EST Subject: Comment on current/future films As I have been off the forum for quite a few months, please forgive me if this is a topic that has been discussed to death recently. Reuters/VARIETY is moving an interesting story about the current explosion of Shakespeare films in release and development (interesting for me at least, since I find the practical and commercial aspects of Shakespeare on film to be almost as intriguing as the artistic implications). Among other things, it reveals that Kenneth Branagh was pressured into casting American stars in his MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING by studio heads at Samuel Goldwyn. That might explain why the cast of his new HAMLET, which supposedly contains many big American stars, is not quite what it appears to be on a closer look. (Every single one of the "big names" is cast in a small role.) I have seen the complete cast list for Branagh's HAMLET and it appears to have much more in common with HENRY V as far as the casting of British stage actors goes. I have not seen the new RICHARD III but I am looking forward to it. Branagh has his fair share of abuse but the apparent success of this new and more adventurous RICHARD film, quite a different approach than the Branagh/Zeffirelli tack, would seem to me to bear out the hopeful predictions some of us had made about a film renaissance in the '90s bringing a wider variety of artistic dividends and not just monetary ones. RICHARD possibly would have never been made as a major feature film were it not for the successes and risks taken by Branagh a few years ago, in my opinion. Much as I hate to stoop to easy quotes, I can only say to those who have little admiration for Branagh and Zeffirelli, "What your wisdoms could not uncover, these shallow fools have brought to light." (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Date: Friday, 26 Jan 1996 13:30:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Development of Individualism I thought I would attempt to pull at least part of this conversation back to Shakespeare and the Renaissance by responding to Chris Fassler's recent post. At one point he writes: > 5) Is there any good work out there about the evolution of English and its > effects on the self in language? (I vaguely remember a job candidate coming > to my alma mater and discussing the introduction of "was now" into the novel, > but I can't remember any conclusions or speculations that might be germaine.) I am not sure that these are exactly what you are looking for, but Anne Ferry's _The "Inward" Language_ deals with what she claims is a rise in subjectivity as evidenced in sonnets from Wyatt to Shakespeare. On your thoughts concerning Descartes formulation, I'd refer you to Kerrigan and Braden's _The Idea of the Renaissance._ Both of these books are fairly controversial, but thought provoking I think. Katharine Maus also has a new book intitled _Inwardness and Theater in the English Renaissance_ which I am currently reading. I find it quite interesting on the subject as well. Fassler continues: > 6) BTW, while I do not share the reverence for Shakespeare and everything > Shakespearean that is common on this list, I must question Jonathan Sawday's > great confidence that "the historical Shakespeare" must have shared Spenser's > genocidal contempt for the Irish. The evidence seems to me, at best, > insufficient with regard to Shakespeare in particular, and the view seems to > me hardly to have been universal (though perhaps nearly so) in early modern > England. I'd have to agree with this. We should keep in mind that Spenser did not publish it during his lifetime, so we can hardly see it as run-of-the-mill Irish hating. Shakespeare may have shared Spenser's beliefs, but he may not have either. Probably, he was somewhere in between our disgust of genocide and Spenser's consideration of it as a useful option. But back to Shakespeare. I think we can at least see a concern with HOW one defines his or her identity in a play like _C of E_. Not only are the terms of "identity" and "identical" played off one another, but the whole idea of what constitutes a unique individual is put under pressure: names are not unique, birth marks are not unique, and the images the characters use to describe themselves are not unique. If we think of Antipholus of Syracuse's first soliloquy (about feeling like a drop of water in the ocean searching for another--modulated, BTW by Adriana's use of the same image later) we can see a concern about defining oneself in society and the world. It seems to me that this is in some ways different than concerns evidenced in some medieval texts. For example, Mallory's "Tale of Sir Gareth," define selfhood in different ways. I am not saying that there is no Medieval subjectivity, but that it might be distinct from Renaissance ways of talking about the same subject. I think of a story told about Robert Frost. After reading "The Road not Taken" for the umpteenth time at a public reading, one of the audience members asked, "Oh Mr. Frost, do you really think it was the better choice?" "I never said better," Frost growled, "I only said different." W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Dept. of Literature and Language University of North Carolina at Asheville========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 12:12:25 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0076 Re: Loreena McKennitt's URL Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0076. Monday, 29 January 1996. (1) From: Dave Beenken Date: Friday, 26 Jan 1996 15:58:26 -0600 (CST) Subj: L. McKennitt URL on the Web (2) From: Patricia E. Gallagher Date: Friday, 26 Jan 1996 19:21:31 -0800 Subj: Re: Loreena McKennitt (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Beenken Date: Friday, 26 Jan 1996 15:58:26 -0600 (CST) Subject: L. McKennitt URL on the Web Loreena McKennitt's Home Page uses the URL of her recording label, Quinlan Road. It is: http://www.demon.co.uk/quinlan/ (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia E. Gallagher Date: Friday, 26 Jan 1996 19:21:31 -0800 Subject: Re: Loreena McKennitt >I have been told that Canadian singer, Loreena McKennitt, has a home >page. Try the following - I think this is the page you were seeking. http://www.wolfenet.com/~drcool/loreena/ Patricia E. Gallagher hwest@ix.netcom.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 12:21:05 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0077 Re: The Sonnets. All of 'em Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0077. Monday, 29 January 1996. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 27 Jan 1996 00:50:43 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0063 Re: The Sonnets. All of 'em (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 28 Jan 1996 19:51:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0063 Re: The Sonnets. All of 'em (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 27 Jan 1996 00:50:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0063 Re: The Sonnets. All of 'em Someone suggests SUCH AS MY LOVE. However, if you want a more subtle (and in my opinion more critically responsible) homoerotic argument for the sonnets check out (or BUY) the late JOEL FINEMAN'S incredible Shakespeare's Perjured EYE (circ 1988).... Also, Terry Ross suggests that because of the length of the sonnets being 2155 lines or so that it should take about 2 hours or so.... but I am reminded of Barber's ESSAY ON THE SONNETS in which he says it's a maddening experience to try to read them in one sitting.... and I do think the genre "claustrophobia" (for lack of a better word) needs to be taken into account. Chris Stroffolino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 28 Jan 1996 19:51:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0063 Re: The Sonnets. All of 'em Like Nina Rulon-Miller, I found Joseph Pequigney's book on the sonnets, "Such is My Love", the best thing I've read on the sonnets. I agree with him regarding the nature of the relationship between the Fair Youth and the poet, and on the sexual overtones of much of the imagery. I am not so convinced as he is that this necessarily means that the affair was consumated. When ones desires are fulfilled one usually has better things to do than write sonnets. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 12:26:01 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0078 Re: Cross-Dressing Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0078. Monday, 29 January 1996. (1) From: David Aaron Carlson Date: Saturday, 27 Jan 1996 07:52:52 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0072 Re: Cross-Dressing (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 28 Jan 1996 20:18:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0072 Re: Cross-Dressing (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Aaron Carlson Date: Saturday, 27 Jan 1996 07:52:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0072 Re: Cross-Dressing Perhaps it's already been mentioned (and I've missed it) but, aside from the definite social considerations involved in cross-dressing in Elizabethan drama, isn't an important reason that Shakespeare included such activity in several of his plays to emphasize the all-male nature of his players? Certainly it was an easy opportunity to evoke some cheap laughter (particularly from those in the pit of the theater--perhaps such physical comedy was considered low-comedy as physical comedy is considered today). Of course, in terms of comedy I'm referring to the exaggerated costumes and movements and voices possible when a male plays a female playing a male or simply a male playing a female; the Induction of _Shrew_ demonstrates how this type of comedy can easily be employed. Isn't it also possible that Shakespeare was commenting on the fact that women were basically not allowed as actors in the Elizabethan theater? Perhaps he felt that he couldn't sell enough tickets if he openly snubbed social tradition by employing a woman to act in his company, but he could satirize such tradition by poking-fun through cross-dressing. I've not researched this subject so any support or refutation from those who have would be appreciated. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 28 Jan 1996 20:18:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0072 Re: Cross-Dressing Gabriel Egan writes: >Whilst not wishing to deny the importance of the sources Hughes mentions, isn't >the anxiety about cross dressing in Elizabethan plays indicative of a wider >anxiety about social order, which makes this phenomenon quite distinct from >medieval saturnalia? As regards "us today", isn't cross dressing still very >much alive in popular entertainment? I'm thinking of the theatre of pantomime >and also drag shows. The recent film 'Priscilla, Queen of the Desert' was >hugely successful, and acceptable to many audiences and critics, despite its >very overt misogyny. I see less "anxiety" about cross dressing in Tudor times than now. We may have an occasional film or play that features cross dressing, but always in the context of transvestism, always campy, always comedic, whereas Tudor theater, a hugely popular entertainment that crossed class lines in ways that western culture was not to see again until the birth of movies, was entirely male, so that all plays, tragedies as well as comedies, were cross dressed. Transvestism, if present, was a subtle sub-text, probably for the entertainment of the gay community. The general audience was asked to suspend disbelief to the extent that male actors were accepted, not as transvestites, but as women. In the reading that I have done I have seen little said against the practice, except by the puritans, who were against the theater altogether, and even by them not much. Nor did the rest of Europe follow this path. Actresses were accepted onstage in Spain by a decree of the Church, which stated that although plays were frequently disreputable, to ban women from the stage would be to put young boys at risk. Actresses were commonplace in both Italy and France. I have pondered why England went such a different route in this than the rest of Europe. I think it may have had much to do with the atmosphere at Court. Elizabeth would not have enjoyed the competition from other charismatic female performers, and James would not have enjoyed women period. What's your thought? Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 13:00:01 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0079 Qs: Theatrical Working Conditions; Shakespeare & the Bible Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0079. Monday, 29 January 1996. (1) From: Greg Grainger Date: Saturday, 27 Jan 1996 23:18:18 -0500 (EST) Subj: Theatrical working conditions. (2) From: Jeff Questad Date: Sunday, 28 Jan 1996 13:57:35 -0800 Subj: Shakespeare and the Bible (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Greg Grainger Date: Saturday, 27 Jan 1996 23:18:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Theatrical working conditions. I've got this idea in my head for a research project, and frankly, I'm stymied as to where to begin. I'd like to investigate the working conditions of theatre workers - not just actors, but painters, carpenters, stagehands, designers, directors, etc. at various times in history, especially Elizabethan and Victorian. Wages, hours required, duties, procedures, working conditions, and how these things compared to other trades and businesses at the time are all grist for the mill. Any ideas, books, headings to search the library catalogues under that I haven't already thought of, etc., will be gratefully received. Thanks in advance, Greg. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Questad Date: Sunday, 28 Jan 1996 13:57:35 -0800 Subject: Shakespeare and the Bible Just read Anthony Burgess' speculations on Shakespeare's possible contributions to the King James Bible in 1610. (He suggests the 46th Psalm, the 46th word of which is "shake" and the 46th word from the end of is "spear", was written by WS and that this is the kind of pun he was likely to include in this less than public work). Can anyone point me in the direction of some other literature on the question of Shakespeare's participation on the King Jame's translation? Pro or con, credible or otherwise. Speulation welcome. I'd love to have some ideas from you on verses from the King Jame's that smell like Shakespeare. Sincerely, Questad ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 13:14:22 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0080 ACTER: Individualism; Mysticism Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0080. Monday, 29 January 1996. (1) From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Saturday, 27 Jan 1996 07:06:52 -0500 (EST) Subj: ACTER Spring 1996 Tour (2) From: John Drakakis Date: Monday, 29 Jan 1996 10:27:46 GMT Subj: RE: SHK 7.0055 Re: Development of Individualism (3) From: Mary Paynter Date: Monday, 29 Jan 1996 08:09:33 -0600 Subj: SHK 7.0067 Qs. Mysticism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Saturday, 27 Jan 1996 07:06:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: ACTER Spring 1996 Tour ACTER will begin its spring tour of *Macbeth* February 7th at UNC-Chapel Hill, with performances on Febr. 10th and 15th-17th. We are fortunate in having 5 ACTER alumni on this tour, with the combined experience of 8 tours among them. Gareth Armstrong, who played Banquo in the Fall 1994 *Macbeth*, returns as Macbeth; Sarah Berger is Lady Macbeth, Sam Dale is Duncan, Phillip Joseph is Banquo, and Joanna Foster is Lady MacDuff and Malcolm. There will be one handers on Richard III and Macbeth(Gareth just finished playing Richard), Anna Akhmatova and Grace Nichols, a black British poet(Joanna), and Voices of Irish Literature (Sam Dale). After the UNC stop, ACTER will go to Notre Dame(Feb. 19-25), New Mexico State (Feb. 26-Mar3), Orlando Florida (Mar. 4-10), Clemson (Mar. 11-17), The Folger Library, Washington DC (Mar 18-24), Mount Saint Mary's in LA (Mar 25-31), Santa Monica College in Santa Monica, CA (April 1-7), and one performance Monday, April 8 at the International Shakespeare Association meeting in LA. If you want more info on these residencies or on ACTER in general, email csdessen@email.unc.edu or call 919-967-4265. Cynthia Dessen, General Manager, ACTER (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Monday, 29 Jan 1996 10:27:46 GMT Subject: RE: SHK 7.0055 Re: Development of Individualism Right on Jonathan! John Drakakis (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Paynter Date: Monday, 29 Jan 1996 08:09:33 -0600 Subject: SHK 7.0067 Qs. Mysticism I would suggest a classic in the field: Evelyn Underwood's 'Mysticism.' It's old now, but still a good basic study. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 09:24:44 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0081 Re: Cross-Dressing Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0081. Tuesday, 30 January 1996. (1) From: Rinda Frye Date: Monday, 29 Jan 96 12:52:00 EST Subj: SHK 7.0078 Re: Cross-Dressing (2) From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 29 Jan 1996 13:29:03 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0078 Re: Cross-Dressing (3) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 29 Jan 1996 20:33:37 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0078 Re: Cross-Dressing (4) From: Bob Leslie <8913241l@arts.gla.ac.uk> Date: Monday, 29 Jan 1996 21:30:29 +0000 Subj: Re: Crossdressing (5) From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 07:09:24 +0000 (HELP) Subj: The normality of cross dressing (6) From: Jan Stirm Date: Monday, 29 Jan 1996 14:51:53 PST Subj: Cross-dressing (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rinda Frye Date: Monday, 29 Jan 96 12:52:00 EST Subject: SHK 7.0078 Re: Cross-Dressing To reply to Stephanie Hughes' query about England banning women from the stage when actresses appeared in Spain, Italy, and France, perhaps the difference stems from the appearance of touring commedia players on the continent but not in England. Commedia companies included women; whereas the older medieval religious plays utilized males, as would Renaissance productions in the schools. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 29 Jan 1996 13:29:03 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0078 Re: Cross-Dressing Students thinking about cross-dressing might profit from looking at a video of the Olivier HV. First we watch the boys shave and stick oranges into their costumes. Then in the opening tavern scenes, that boy actor playing Mistress Quickly has some very funny byplay with the Pit before s/he ever begins her lines. The 1940's spectator is both drawn into that convention and made fairly compfortable with it as the is the very different 90's viewer today. Mary Jane Miller, Brock University, (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 29 Jan 1996 20:33:37 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0078 Re: Cross-Dressing David Aaron Carlson writes > Certainly it [cross-dressing] was an > easy opportunity to evoke some cheap laughter (particularly from those in the > pit of the theater--perhaps such physical comedy was considered low-comedy as > physical comedy is considered today). The term 'pit' is only valid for the indoor playhouses, and there is no reason to suppose that those who paid for these expensive seats would more readily appreciate 'low-comedy' (if we accept the validity of that term) than anyone else. At the outdoor playhouse the 'yard' is the equivalent location, but again it's quite a leap to suppose that those who stood there had a particular kind of taste. Stephanie Hughes writes, > Transvestism, if present, was a subtle sub-text, probably for the > entertainment of the gay community. I hardly know where to begin with this comment. Is the cross-dressing of Viola, Jessica, Rosalind, Celia, Innogen, etc. really just 'subtle sub-text'? To bring the modern term 'gay community' back to the sixteenth century is just silly. A good starting point would be the work of Alan Bray and Paul Hammond who argue that modern catagories just don't apply because our notion that a person possesses an innate 'sexuality', as distinct from the particular acts (moral or immoral) than s/he engages in, would be meaningless to a sixteenth-century person. > The general audience was asked to suspend disbelief to the extent > that male actors were accepted, not as transvestites, but as > women. Haven't you noticed the intense preoccupation with the 'true' maleness underlying the representation of female characters in the drama of the period? What else is Cleopatra referring to when she says: "I shall see / Some squeaking Cleopatra boy my greatness / I' th' posture of a whore"? There are countless examples of characters referring to the maleness (or, indeed, in the case of Othello, the underlying whiteness) of the player who takes the part. Suspension of disbelief is another wholly inappropriate idea to bring to the plays of the period. Gabriel Egan (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Leslie <8913241l@arts.gla.ac.uk> Date: Monday, 29 Jan 1996 21:30:29 +0000 Subject: Re: Crossdressing It has been convincingly argued (in Ferdinando Taviani and Mirella Schino, *Il segreto della Commedia dell'Arte* [Florence: La Casa Usher, 1982] pp.334-9) that one reason for the emergence of women as actors in the commedia dell'arte companies may have been that a combination of economic decline and the censorious atmosphere of the Counter-Reformation forced many courtesans, cultured, intelligent and well-read, to look for alternative employment. A corroborating factor may be found in the similar esteem and social position of prominent courtesans, e.g. Imperia, and the top-ranking actresses of the post-tridentine period, e.g. Isabella Andreini, as well as the disdain and prejudice accorded lower-ranking members of both professions. Economic necessity meant that the troupes could carry no passengers and therefore the heroine became much more central to the drama than neo-classical orthodoxy would prescribe. The popularity of the Italian heroine and the greater verisimilitude and colour which she lent to the stage inevitably led authors of the more respectable *commedia grave* (Sforza Oddi, Della Porta etc.) to recast her as a powerful, witty but virtuously self-sacrificing character whose enduring fidelity earns her a providential reward. This, essentially, is the model of heroine adopted in much of Shakespearean comedy and the Fletcherian school of tragicomedy both in terms of characterisation and plot centrality. Italian renaissance drama frequently exploited the idea of cross-dressing (e.g. Secchi's *Inganni* - widely accepted as a source for *Twelfth Night*) but, given the circumstances, any sexual *frisson* would be generated,in the latter part of the 16th century at any rate, by the sight of a real woman strutting in male costume rather than as the male homoerotic response which some SHAKSPERIANS have indicated as an implied feature of the Elizabethan use of boy actors. While not denying that such a response was possible, indeed likely, it does not seem to be an implicit aspect of theatrical composition but rather forced on playwrights by two external factors: the lack of a courtesan tradition in England which deprived the stage of a cultured female demi-monde from which accomplished actresses could be drawn; and the adoption of late Cinquecento Italian models by playwrights who were thereby constrained by the conventions of the genre to give female characters an unprecedented degree of centrality. Thus the boy players came into their own and Silvia, Viola, and Juliet claimed their share of centre stage. The fact that the same female centrality (played by women) was simultaneously manifest on the French, Spanish and Italian stages surely negates any suggestion that the inclusion of such roles in English drama of the period had anything to do with a particular anglo-saxon attitude to sex. The use, on moral grounds, of boys to play these parts however may well have resulted in a sexually ambiguous audience response which says more about English sexual hypocrisy than about the intentions of Elizabethan playwrights. Bob Leslie (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 07:09:24 +0000 (HELP) Subject: The normality of cross dressing It strikes me that males playing women were accepted quite naturally in that theatre, sometimes of course comically and often as exaggeration, but *accepted* as a convention. Is Dame Edna any less `true', for instance, than the actresses of "Absolutely Fabulous"? It has a lot to do with the admiration of skill, and very little with photographic respresentation ot mirror image of "life as it is lived", surely. To bend Hopkins' definition of the poetic art, is it not merely "current behaviour hightened"? Whatever private pleasures the practice may have peripherally afforded, it was woman-ness that was being acted out as being-ness was being presented by all the roles anyway. The imperfections were fleshed out by the minds of the assemblage, who apparently always came back for more. Harry Hill [Looking forward to playing Lady Bracknell in "Lady Bracknell's Confinement" next season here.] (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jan Stirm Date: Monday, 29 Jan 1996 14:51:53 PST Subject: Cross-dressing Dear Fellow Shaksperians, David Kastan has an interesting argument in the 1993 Renaissance Drama ("Is there a class in this [Shakespearean] Text?") which looks at cross-dressing in terms of class (yes, of course he complicated the term) and gender representation. He traces anxieties regarding clothing and class identifications and parallels them with those regarding gender. It's an interesting argument, and one that got students talking in my class when I brought it in! Best, Jan Stirm Stirm@humnet.ucla.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 09:32:56 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0082 Re: Psalm 46 Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0082. Tuesday, 30 January 1996. (1) From: Ian H. Doescher Date: Monday, 29 Jan 1996 17:23:29 -0500 (EST) Subj: Psalm 46 (2) From: Bill Glaser Date: Monday, 29 Jan 96 19:08 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0079 Qs: Shakespeare & the Bible (3) From: John Cox Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 11:43:10 +0000 (gmt) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0079 Qs: Shakespeare & the Bible (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian H. Doescher Date: Monday, 29 Jan 1996 17:23:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Psalm 46 Jeff Questad writes: >Just read Anthony Burgess' speculations on Shakespeare's possible contributions >to the King James Bible in 1610. (He suggests the 46th Psalm, the 46th word of >which is "shake" and the 46th word from the end of is "spear", was written by >WS and that this is the kind of pun he was likely to include in this less than >public work). I don't have any other ideas about what else might be Shakespeare's, but I heard this story to a different tune. The speculation I heard implied that the publishers of this edition of the King James Bible meant the 46th Psalm as a tribute to Shakespeare. Further evidence of this stems from the fact that 1610, when the edition was published, was Shakespeare's 46th birthday. Ian Doescher (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Glaser Date: Monday, 29 Jan 96 19:08 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0079 Qs: Shakespeare & the Bible Or how about verses from Shakespeare that smell like Biblical Greek? Regards, Bill Glaser (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 11:43:10 +0000 (gmt) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0079 Qs: Shakespeare & the Bible I hope Antony Burgess doesn't claim originality for the psalmist's pun on "Shakespeare." I first heard it thirty years ago. The best work on Shakespeare and the Bible is by Naseeb Shaheen. John Cox ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 09:59:26 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0083 Re: The Sonnets; Working Conditions; Mysticism Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0083. Tuesday, 30 January 1996. (1) From: Terry Ross Date: Monday, 29 Jan 1996 16:00:15 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0077 Re: The Sonnets. All of 'em (2) From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 29 Jan 96 19:15:49 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0079 Qs: Theatrical Working Conditions (3) From: Mary Paynter Date: Monday, 29 Jan 1996 19:33:43 -0600 Subj: Mysticism (again!) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry Ross Date: Monday, 29 Jan 1996 16:00:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0077 Re: The Sonnets. All of 'em On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Chris Stroffolino wrote: > Terry Ross suggests that because of the length of the sonnets being 2155 > lines or so that it should take about 2 hours or so.... but I am reminded > of Barber's ESSAY ON THE SONNETS in which he says it's a maddening > experience to try to read them in one sitting.... and I do think the genre > "claustrophobia" (for lack of a better word) needs to be taken into > account. Sure it's "claustrophobic," but so is performing all the Brandenburg Concertos or all the Bartok String Quartets or all of St. Mark's Gospel in one evening, to mention just a few "claustrophobic" programs which have been brought off successfully. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 29 Jan 96 19:15:49 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0079 Qs: Theatrical Working Conditions In response to Greg Grainger's query--I'm not going to be that much help when it comes to workers in the Elizabethan theatre, but a good place to start looking for info on the Victorians might be Michael Booth's _Theatre in the Victorian Age_. The text is a broad, general consideration of most aspects of Victorian theatre, but he does pay some attention to theatrical working conditions, and you would undoubtedly find some good sources in his bibliography. Also, check out virtually any article by Tracy Davis (_Theatre Survey_ and _Theatre Journal_ are periodicals in which she publishes frequently--also perhaps _Nineteenth-Century Theatre_). Her work is feminist in methodology and based largely in the social sciences. Though she focusses mostly on the conditions for working actresses, again you should be able to unearth some fine source material in her bibliographies. Hope this helps! David Skeele Slippery Rock University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Paynter Date: Monday, 29 Jan 1996 19:33:43 -0600 Subject: Mysticism (again!) RE: SHK 7.0067 Qs. "Mysticism" -- My earlier reference was incorrect. The name of the writer on Mysticism was Evelyn Underhill. My typing was faster than my memory! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 10:01:21 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0084 Q: Three Hours After Marriage Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0084. Tuesday, 30 January 1996. From: Herman Asarnow Date: Monday, 29 Jan 1996 15:26:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Three Hours After Marriage I saw a brief mention last week by somebody explaining that there will be an RSC production of Pope, Gay, and Arbuthnot's Three Hours After Marriage sometime soon in London or Stratford. There's no mention of it on the RSC Web page. Could whoever wrote that send me information, at "asarnow@uofport.edu"? Or send it via SHAKSPER. Herman Asarnow University of Portland========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 11:21:21 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0085 Re: Cross-Dressing Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0085. Thursday, 1 February 1996. (1) From: Florence Amit Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 18:51:58 +0200 Subj: Being Comfortable (2) From: John Reed Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 96 12:52:36 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0081 Re: Cross-Dressing (3) From: Susanne Collier Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 14:09:16 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0081 Re: Cross-Dressing (4) From: Andy Grewar Date: Wednesday, 31 Jan 1996 13:04:05 GMT+120 Subj: Cross-Dressing & Theatrical working conditions (5) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 31 Jan 1996 09:29:55 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0081 Re: Cross-Dressing (6) From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 31 Jan 1996 14:36 ET Subj: SHK 7.0081 Re: Cross-Dressing (7) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 31 Jan 1996 15:21:06 -0500 (EST) Subj: Cross-Dressing (8) From: Michael Yogev Date: Thursday, 1 Feb 1996 17:05:14 +0200 (WET) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0081 Re: Cross-Dressing (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Florence Amit Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 18:51:58 +0200 Subject: Being Comfortable In all the discussion about cross dressing what seems to be missing is the obvious relief that the actors, even very young ones, would have felt to be rid of those pounds of dusty velvet and climb into more comfortable attire. Surely this must have had some affect especially when many producers had grown up with the theatre and could well sympathize. One might even project that relief and sense of freedom upon the characterizations of 'liberated' female characters. Florence Amit Email: amit-1@actcom.co.il (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Reed Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 96 12:52:36 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0081 Re: Cross-Dressing In case anyone's interested, Spanish Renaissance drama is replete with women cross-dressing as men, usually to pursue an unfaithful lover and to recover their lost honor. Tirso de Molina has a surprisingly high number of 'comedias' with this occurence. I would suggest Don Gil of the Green Breeches as being one of the more famous. Also many feminist studies have been done on the subject and may prove to be of interest McKendrick, Melveena. "Honour/Vengeance in the Spanish Comedia: A Case of Mimetic Transference" Mod. Lang. Review 79.2 (1984): 313-35 ---, Women and Society in the Spanish Drama of the Golden Age. NY: Cambridge UP., 1974 Stoll, Anita K and Dawn Smith, eds. The Perception of Women in Spanish Theatre Of the Golden Age. Lewisburg: Bucknell UP ; London: Associated UPs 1991 I might also suggest 2 of Spain's female playwrights: Maria de Zayas and Ana Caro (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susanne Collier Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 14:09:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0081 Re: Cross-Dressing The cross-dressing debate interests me because I vividly recall how effective Dexter Fletcher was as the player queen in the Roger Rees Hamlet at Stratford-upon-Avon in the mid-eighties. He had been a child actor and was in his late teens that season. The transition from his appearance at the players' entrance to his role in "the Mousetrap" made a (suspension) disbeliever out of me. He was a splendid and completely convincing Player Queen. Cheers fellow shakspereans! (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andy Grewar Date: Wednesday, 31 Jan 1996 13:04:05 GMT+120 Subject: Cross-Dressing & Theatrical working conditions In SHK 7.0081, Bob Leslie points out that Elizabethan playwrights adopted > late Cinquecento Italian models ... [and] were thereby constrained > by the conventions of the genre to give female characters an > unprecedented degree of centrality. Thus the boy players came into > their own and Silvia, Viola, and Juliet claimed their share of > centre stage. Oscar J. Campbell ("_Two Gentlemen of Verona_ and Italian Comedy," in _Studies in Shakespeare, Milton and Donne_ by Members of the English Department of the University of Michigan, New York/London: Macmillan, 1925, pp. 56-58) long ago observed that the device of the heroine disguising herself as a youth occurs in many written Italian renaissance comedies and in no fewer than 18 of Scala's 50 commedia dell'arte scenarios. He argues that since most comedies of the time were set in a public street, and since no respectable young woman would be allowed to converse with a young man in the streets, this device of male disguise allowed dramatists to give the heroine a greater role, where she would not be confined to conversations with her lover from a balcony or doorway or through a window. Campbell was one of the first scholars to argue convincingly for Shakespeare's debt to the commedia dell'arte for many of his comic conventions. His three articles on the topic are not very well known, however. Greg Grainger asks for references on Elizabethan theatrical conditions. Muriel Bradbrook's series on Shakespearean theatre might provide a starting point, as might T.W. Baldwin's _The Organization and Personnel of the Shakespearean Company_, a somewhat discredited book which yet deserves attention for the research it embodies, if not for its speculations as to the original casting of the plays. Andy Grewar (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 31 Jan 1996 09:29:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0081 Re: Cross-Dressing Rinda Frye; A commedia troupe did visit London at least once (sometime 70's--90's, sorry, can't remember the date) and met with hoots of derision, in print at least. The actresses were characterized as "whores" (surprise! surprise!). There was also a performance put on by a woman, I believe she may have written the piece as well, but it too was panned. The point made by all contemporary commentators was obviously that God just didn't intend for women to act (I believe the word "monster" was also used). This in spite of the fact that well-travelled Englishmen were certainly aware of the fact that women were playing women in all other European countries. Mary Jane Miller; I agree with you that English audiences were comfortable with the convention (agree with Harry Hill on this also); after all, except for the wealthy who could travel to the continent, they had never known anything else. Boys whose voices had not yet changed played girls and young women, while youths past the voice change played older women. For most actors there came a time when they switched to male roles. Some actors were famous for their ability to play women. Perhaps a better insight into the theatrical reality of the time than Olivier's Henry V would be the recent Chinese movie about a boy forced to become an actor of all female roles (sorry, can't remember the name of it. It was popular about a year ago.) The boys were trained as actors in special schools, much as they were in this film. Many of them were "impressed" by Court decree, that is, it was an "honor" that neither they nor their families could refuse. Gabriel Egan; I used the term "transvestism" to indicate a situation, however, brief, in which the opposite sex disguise is meant, by text or staging, to be penetrated by the audience. My point was that it was NOT meant to be penetrated by the MAJORITY of the audience, but existed as a subtext for those who would respond more to the sight of a male Cesario in love with Orsino than to a female Viola in love with Orsino, or to Orlando in love with a male Ganymede rather than a female Rosalind; thus the plot was truly As You Like It. Those who would choose to see the story by the reality of the sex of the actors rather than the convention, would be the gay male community, a term which we may certainly use for them, whether or not they used it for themselves. (Suspension of disbelief not required in the 16th century English theater? Hasn't it always been required?) Bob Leslie; Your comments on the connection between commedia actresses and the courtesan class are most interesting. Do you know at what point the italians began using women to play women? If you do I would dearly love to know when, and where you found the information, as I have been keeping an eye open for it, but haven't found it yet. It is fascinating that it may be from the commedia grave that the stereotype of the self-sacrificing heroine arose, as seen so often in Shakespeare, Robert Greene, et al. I also agree that the use of boys for women's parts says more, much more, about English hypocrisy than about the intentions of playwrights. (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 31 Jan 1996 14:36 ET Subject: SHK 7.0081 Re: Cross-Dressing Thanks to Bob Leslie for the tonic reminder that early modern English dramatic and theatrical conventions did not arise in a cultural vacuum. But his speculations on relationships between the emergence of female actors in commedia grave and the economic miseries of courtesans provoke this question (several links farther along the associational chain): is it inconceivable that one or more professional companies did in fact smuggle one or more women onto the stage? I think especially of a play like _The Roaring Girl_: the frissons aroused by a cross-dressed woman in a profoundly gendered society are integral to the action of that play in ways that they are not to _As You Like It_. Does anybody know what the penalty for violating that restraint (I'm away from my resources--was it statute? decree? order in council?) would have been? Enough to discourage a sure-fire succes de scandale? We have a highly satisfying _AYLI_ running in Cleveland these days--I'm suddenly trying to imagine knowing that the Orlando is really a woman. . . . In (trans)vested interests, Dave Evett (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 31 Jan 1996 15:21:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Cross-Dressing It seems to me that *The Taming of the Shrew* is a good script to use when discussing cross-dressing. There are no fictional females in the script. (By "fictional female" I mean a character who is supposed to be female, e.g., Ophelia, Desdemona, even though the character is played by a boy.) Only in the secondary fable, the play within the play, are there "females," and these "females" are played by female impersonators as part of the primary fable. What about suspension of disbelief? When Sly is taken in by the nameless Lord's page, Barthol'mew, aren't we, the audience, to believe that Sly is taken in by the personation? This may be a special sense of "suspension of disbelief," but if the audience can't believe the fable in some way, how is drama possible? Certainly Sly seems to suspend his disbelief -- and apparently swallows the Lord's home drama whole hog. (Please excuse my metaphor.) I think this is a comment on audience reaction in the 16th century. Also *Taming* obviously links class and cross-dressing. What we do with that link is another question. (By "we" I mean all of us.) The Lord deceives Sly using cross-dressing, and there is an obvious analogy between Sly and Katherine. Perhaps one could make a case that Katherine is deceived by Petruchio's "acting," but it seems to me that she never suspends her disbelief; she merely develops her own role of the dutiful wife -- a role from which she remains emotionally detached. Yours, Bill Godshalk (8)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Thursday, 1 Feb 1996 17:05:14 +0200 (WET) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0081 Re: Cross-Dressing On Tue, 30 Jan 1996, Bob Leslie wrote: >Italian renaissance drama frequently exploited the idea of cross-dressing (e.g. >Secchi's *Inganni* - widely accepted as a source for *Twelfth Night*) but, >given the circumstances, any sexual *frisson* would be generated,in the latter >part of the 16th century at any rate, by the sight of a real woman strutting in >male costume rather than as the male homoerotic response which some >SHAKSPERIANS have indicated as an implied feature of the Elizabethan use of boy >actors. While not denying that such a response was possible, indeed likely, it >does not seem to be an implicit aspect of theatrical composition but rather >forced on playwrights by two external factors: the lack of a courtesan >tradition in England which deprived the stage of a cultured female demi-monde >from which accomplished actresses could be drawn; and the adoption of late >Cinquecento Italian models by playwrights who were thereby constrained by the >conventions of the genre to give female characters an unprecedented degree of >centrality. Thus the boy players came into their own and Silvia, Viola, and >Juliet claimed their share of centre stage. The fact that the same female >centrality (played by women) was simultaneously manifest on the French, Spanish >and Italian stages surely negates any suggestion that the inclusion of such >roles in English drama of the period had anything to do with a particular >anglo-saxon attitude to sex. The use, on moral grounds, of boys to play these >parts however may well have resulted in a sexually ambiguous audience response >which says more about English sexual hypocrisy than about the intentions of >Elizabethan playwrights. I would just add to Bob Leslie's points here the informative discussion available in Phyllis Rackin's _Stages of History_ (1990), of the complex relationship between male dress and female identity inscribed by the parallels suggested in _1HenryVI_'s Joan of Arc and Queen Elizabeth. Here, it seems to me, we have at least some clues to the specifically English incidence of women dressing in male clothing. As Rackin (and in her notes, Linda Woodbridge and Gabriele Jackson) points out, the real tension for the English audience was not a so-called transvestism so much as an uneasy sense of women making a claim to the power of patriarchal society by wearing male clothing. The Queen herself of course exploited this prerogative in many ways, wearing armor, comparing herself to Richard II, etc. Thus Rackin makes a pretty convincing case for the phenomenon of cross-dressing by women in Elizabethan England as a power move not much related at all to the experience of theater-goers watching young boys dress as women. Woodbridge points out that real-life women in fact donned male dress throughout the Elizabethan era, something they could not do on stage as was becoming the case on the continent. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 14:48:14 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0086 Re: Shakespeare and the Bible Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0086. Thursday, 1 February 1996. (1) From: Jay Johnson Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 10:20:47 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: Shakespeare and the Bible (2) From: Paul Franssen Date: Wednesday, 31 Jan 1996 10:04:02 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re Shk 7.0079 Shakespeare and the Bible (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay Johnson Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 10:20:47 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: Shakespeare and the Bible With regard to Jeff Questad's request for information on accounts of Shakespeare's involvement with the Bible, the most interesting treatment that I know of is "Proofs of Holy Writ," a short story by Rudyard Kipling which presents a fascinating image of Shakespeare and Ben Jonson working out the details of the King James version over a bottle of wine. Cheers, Jay Johnson (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Franssen Date: Wednesday, 31 Jan 1996 10:04:02 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re Shk 7.0079 Shakespeare and the Bible Burgess worked up his theory on Shakespeare's involvement in the composition of Psalm 46 into a story, quite amusing, which is included in his comic novel *Enderby's Dark Lady.* The theory is hardly tenable, however, in view of the fact that earlier Bible translations on which the King James Bible was based had the same words in nearly the same positions, so that a small shift was needed to produce this coincidence. For full details, see my article "Half a Miracle: A Response to William Harmon," in *Connotations* Vol 3 (1993/94) Number 2, 118-22. Paul Franssen University of Utrecht The Netherlands ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 15:16:00 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0087 Productions: R3; Ado; Ham.; Oth.; Mac; MND Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0087. Thursday, 1 February 1996. (1) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 96 11:41:19 -0600 Subj: Looking for Richard (2) From: Chris Shamburg Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 96 14:24:47 EST Subj: Modern Much Ado (3) From: Mark Fisher Date: Thursday, 1 Feb 1996 15:10:13 +0000 Subj: Current Hamlets (4) From: Tunis Romein Date: Wednesday, 31 Jan 1996 18:16:35 0 Subj: Olivier's "Othello" (5) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 01 Feb 1996 09:29:05 -0500 (EST) Subj: Review of Fahrenheit *Macbeth* (6) From: Scott Crozier Date: Thursday, 1 Feb 1996 09:13:19 +1000 Subj: RSC *MND*; (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 96 11:41:19 -0600 Subject: Looking for Richard Yesterday's New York Times included an article by Janet Maslin about the Sundance Film Festival that mentioned the "meditation on *Richard III*" directed by Al Pacino. Here's the relevant paragraph: 'Though Mr. Pacino hardly falls under the heading of new talent, his out-of-competition film proved one of the festival's true revelations. Far from being a vanity production or dilettantism, "Looking for RIchard" is sharp, funny and illuminating in its efforts to explicate Shakespeare's text. Mr. Pacino tries everything: talking to people in the street about "Richard III," grilling well-known Shakespearean performers (including John Gielgud, Kenneth Branagh and Vanessa Redgrave) about the play, dissecting and analyzing his own prodcution with members of his steller case (Winona Ryder, Alec Baldwin, Kevin Spacey), clowning freely and even throwing in flashes of "The Tempest" simply because he felt like it. Mr. Pacino also acts Richard's role with the crackling intensity of his great film performances instead of the empty histrionics of "Heat." In ways that finally seem less arbitrary than those of the current film "Richard III," he makes the play come newly alive.' Certainly sounds worth seeing! Chris Gordon (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Shamburg Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 96 14:24:47 EST Subject: Modern Much Ado I heard a rumor that there is a modern adaptation of *Much Ado* called *Hot January.* Rumor has it that it is touring in Canada and that it is a musical(Benedick's first song is "Hey, how ya doin'"). Is there anyone on the list that can confirm this? Sincerely, Chris Shamburg cshambur@pegasus.rutgers.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Fisher Date: Thursday, 1 Feb 1996 15:10:13 +0000 Subject: Current Hamlets I'm about to write a newspaper article connected to the publication of Michael Pennington's *Hamlet: A User's Guide* (Nick Hern Books, UK). Does anyone know of any current or imminent productions of Hamlet that I might be able to cross-refer to? I'm aware of the Robert Lepage one-man version, and the Peter Brook reworking. Thanks. Mark Fisher (fisher@easynet.co,uk) (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tunis Romein Date: Wednesday, 31 Jan 1996 18:16:35 -0500 Subject: Olivier's "Othello" Does anyone know where to purchase an _audio_ (not video) recording of Olivier's performance of Othello? Tunis Romein Charleston, SC USA romeint@awod.com (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 01 Feb 1996 09:29:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Review of Fahrenheit *Macbeth* I promised a review of Fahrenheit Theatre Company's *Macbeth* ("Angels and ministers of grace defend us!") and here it is: The black and white set has two levels with long stairs to right and= left and a round central exit space at stage level. The two levels are effectively used in this production. As the initial, symbolic action begins, Duncan stands on the upper level, presiding over an internecine battle of six thanes, who, on the lower level, hold a cloth of many tartans as they kill each other and tear the cloth to pieces. Don't look for this is Shakespeare"s script, but it is well-done and leads to the entrance of Macbeth and Banquo in 1.3. In this production, the battle is still raging in 1.3, and Macbeth and Banquo enter berserk and fighting, mistake each other for the enemy (nice touch), and fight stoutly until mutual recognition and are hailed by the witches who are onstage as they fight. The costumes, with hints of tartan and armor, suggest medieval Scotland. One local critic complained that the costumes are not made of heavy wool as they probably would have been in Scotland! Perhaps the realist critics are still with us. My apologies to Alan Desson for doubting him! Nevertheless, Desson would like the minimalist assumptions of this production. Khristopher Lewin plays a very genial Macbeth, a Macbeth who acknowledges his debt to Richard III. It was impossible for me to dislike this rollicking, laughing murderer who is easily devastated with the qualms of conscience. He does exhibit a growing coarseness, but he hardly loses audience sympathy =96 my sympathy at any rate. In his final battle, he is apparently carefree because he has so completely bought the prophecies. He fights and kills young Siward (Nicholas Rose) almost in the comic mode, playing with him as a cat plays with a mouse, finally stabbing him (significantly) in the back. Macbeth is finally killed by Macduff with the points of his own crown. Marni Penning's Lady Macbeth emphasizes the youth of this murderous duo. She smiles happily in 2.5 as she says, "Glamis thou art, and Cawdor, and shalt be / What thou art promis'd." She's too young to know what she and her husband are getting themselves into. By 3.2, there is a coarsening of their relationship, and Macbeth treats her with a barely restrained brutality; his geniality is lost, and she looks out at the "rooky wood" with fear on her face. Her final madness recalls very nicely the scene following the murder of Duncan: in both the actors =96 stumbling and groping -- pretend that the stage is totally dark a very fine touch. (Penning also doubles effectively as Macduff's child in this case female.) Lewin and Penning are supported by an excellent cast. Randy Lee Bailey plays an attractive, full-bodied, jovial Banquo who gives me the impression of a valiant warrior who has been (at least partially) co-opted by Macbeth. (I asked Bailey about my impression, and he bridled a bit. He felt that his Banquo had not completely sold out to Macbeth.) Some of Bailey's best moments come as Banquo's ghost: blood covered and silently laughing at Macbeth. David Frydrychowski plays a tall, athletic, totally serious Macduff. In his interview with Malcolm, played by C. Charles Scheeren, Macduff seems to be completely out of his depth: a poor Scottish lad who is duped by a less than honorable Malcolm. Scheeren"s stories of moral turpitude seem so much more honest than his claims of virginity. Scheeren also plays the apparitions in 3.6, linking him to the evil powers. (The doubling in this production is never disguised, and is usually meaningful.) Richard Arthur, the oldest member of the company, plays a convincing Duncan, and doubles as Old Siward. William Sweeney, Richard Kelly, Jim Stump, Nicholas Rose, and Toni Brotons-Goodney play an assortment of Scottish thanes and nobles, who are interesting divided into "politicians" and "warriors" according to their red or brown cloaks. The Janus-faced (fair and foul) weird sisters are played by Jeanne Gibowicz, Regina Cerimele, and Lisa Penning. On the backs of their heads, they wear ugly masks with their hair pulled through the masks acting as beards. In front, they are beautiful, indeed charming, young women. Their body stockings suggest that they are element: air, water, and fire. (Hecate is the fourth element "earth" as I recall. I may have the elements incorrectly distributed.) In any case, the sisters turn their charming faces to Macbeth and their ugly faces to Banquo: thus Banquo"s description of them as withered, wild, and bearded. (They tend to dance circles around Macbeth!) One of the most interesting aspects of this production is Jasson Minadakis"s decision to openly double R. Chris Reeder as the bloody captain (1.2), the porter, the third murderer, Hecate, and Seyton. Reeder has shaved his head (as have several of the other actors) and wears a wig for the porter and as he is speaking the line "I devil-porter it no longer" (2.3.17), he pulls off his wig to reveal the bloody captain. Later the audience comes to think that all these roles are played by an omni-present Hecate, who acts in both a fair and a foul manner, both saving and killing. Purists will not be, indeed have not been, amused. I thought the doubling worked; if only to increase the audience's sense of the mystery of evil and the Janus-faced world of this play. The show is at the Aronoff Center for the Arts in downtown Cincinnati, and closes on February 11. I have heard on good authority that there are only about 100 seats remaining. The matinee on February 3 is sold out. So if you are interested in attending, better act soon. Tickets may be purchase by phone at (513) 241-SHOW. By the way, I'm not employed by the Fahrenheit Theatre Company! I'm simply interested in keeping Shakespeare alive and well in Cincinnati. Yours, Bill Godshalk (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Thursday, 1 Feb 1996 09:13:19 +1000 Subject: RSC *MND*; In reply to Heather Stephenson's query, As far as I know only Stella Gonet has had to leave the original cast of the Dream on tour as she had other commitments. I was the person who suggested that the actors treated it as a warm up which makes me even more suspicious about the philosophy of the Stratford powers that be, the worth of academic criticism of a production when the production proved so popular and why it is that mediocrity has been allowed to dictate recent productions at Stratford. A subjective gripe I know but one that has troubled me for some time. When the humour of the lovers flight through the forest is based on static, shallow sight gags - what happens to the audience perception of both the production and the play? Regards, Scott Crozier ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 15:26:11 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0088 Announcement and CFP Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0088. Thursday, 1 February 1996. (1) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 12:57:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Conference announcement (2) From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Wednesday, 31 Jan 1996 11:15:22 -0800 (PST) Subj: Call for Papers (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 12:57:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Conference announcement ANNOUNCING THE MIDDLE AGES IN CONTEMPORARY POPULAR CULTURE An Interdisciplinary Conference McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada March 29-31, 1996 Keynote Speaker: Derrick de Kerckhove Director of the McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology University of Toronto This conference will explore the general theme of "The Middle Ages in Contemporary Popular Culture." This theme is intended to be as open-ended as possible and will be approached from many directions. Topics include, but are not limited to: *Marketing the Middle Ages in music (Gregorian chant, Hildegard of Bingen), novels, movies,TV series, video games and CD-ROM *New Millenarianisms, Satanic cults and witchcraft *The Middle Ages in nationalist ideologies *The Middle Ages as an attraction for tourists: visits to archeological sites, medieval fairs, feasts and pageants. A number of special cultural events are also planned, including musical performances, films, a display of books, videos and interactive multimedia products. To receive further information or a registration form, please contact: Madeleine Jeay Susan Fast Department of French School of Art, Drama and Music McMaster University McMaster University Hamilton, On. Canada L8S 4M2 Hamilton, On. Canada L8S 4M2 Tel: (905) 525-9140 ext. 2375Tel: (905) 525-9140 ext. 23670 e-mail: jeaymad@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca e-mail:fastfs@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca FAX: (905) 577-6930 http:\\www.mcmaster.ca Presented by the McMaster Working Group on the Middle Ages and Renaissance ***************************************************************************= LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AND PAPERS: AVRUTIN Lily, University of Alberta The Artist as God's Fool; The Case of Andrei Roublev by Andrei Tarkovsky BEDARD Marie-Christine, Universite Laval, Quebec Les Medievales de Quebec comme terrain d'experimentation de la communication de l'histoire. BLAIN Jenny, Dalhousie University Witchcraft, Magic and Religion: Some Discursive Reconstructions of Belief and Practice. BRAY Dorothy, McGill University, Montreal The Beowulf Conceit in Terminators 1 and 2. BRENT Robert, University of Western Ontario I'm So Hot for Her and She Is So Cold: Petrarch and the Rolling Stones. CAPPS Sandra E., University of Tennessee, Knoxville Glastonbury: Medieval, Modern and New Age. CASH John, Indiana University Structure and Authenticity in the Current Middle Ages. CHAREST R., Universite Laval, Quebec Perceptions et critiques historiques des "Medievales" dans les medias. DARRUP Cathy C., City University of New York Did God Paint You? The Past as African Identity in Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves. de KERCKHOVE Derrick, University of Toronto The Electronic Middle Ages DUFRESNE Lucy, Universite d'Ottawa Which Witch is Which? Recasting Historical Nightmares as Utopian Visions. ERISMAN Wendy, University of Texas at Austin For My Lady's Honour: Gender, Performance and the Reproduction of Social Power in a Medieval Re-Creation Society. EVERETT William A., Washburn University, Topeka, Kansas Images of Arthurian Britain in the American Musical Theatre: A Connecticut Yankee and Camelot. FLINT Catrena, McGill University, Montreal Romancing Hildegard: Postmodern Appropriations of a Medieval Composer GOLINI Vera, St. Jerome's College, Waterloo Petrarch to Elvis, Lyrics Then and Now. GREGORY Christine, Florida Intenational University, Miami "So You Thought WE Have it Bad!" Dysfunctional, Corrupt and Brutal: Medieval Life in the Lion in Winter and Braveheart. HARLEY Maria Anna, McGill University, Montreal Romancing Hildegard: Postmodern Appropriations of a Medieval Composer. JEAY Gregoire, Orchestre Baroque de Montreal Concert with Carolyn Sinclair and the McMaster Dancers. KENDRIS Theodore, Universite Laval, Quebec Merlin, Sherlock Holmes and Mr. Spock: The Three Wise Men of Western Culture. KERSLAKE Geoffrey P., University of Guelph Popular Culture's Ignored Genre: The Middle Ages in Role-Playing Games KNIGHT Graham, McMaster University, Hamilton High-Tech Feudalism: Warrior Culture and Science Fiction Televison. KOLOZE Jeff, Cleveland State University Male "Bondage" or "Bonding": Malory's Depictions of Men and their Relationship to Men of Today. KREUZIGER-HERR Annette, University of Hamburg, Germany The Presence of the Past in the Present; Medieval Music in the Twentieth Century. LEWIS David Charles, University of Toronto The Return of Charlemagne;The Middle Ages, the European Idea and the European Right. LIFSCHITZ Felice, Columbia University Welcome to Medieval Life:Crafts, Dungeons and Instruments of Torture in Sunny Florida. MARKEWITZ Darrell, The Wareham Forge Historical Interpretationand Experimental Archeology in the Society for Creative Anachronism. MULHBERGER Steven, Nipissing University The Middle Ages As They Were or As They Should Have Been? NEWMAN Sharan, University of California, Santa Barbara Beyond Camelot and Chretien de Troyes: A Social Historian's Use of the Novel to Teach the Middle Ages. NOBLE James, University of New Brunswick The Realm of King Arthur in the Silly Season. PEDERSON Kristen, University of Toronto Magic, Power and Women's Sexuality in Medieval Scandinavia. RABINOVITCH Shelley, Universite d'Ottawa Which Witch is Which? Recasting Historical Nightmares as Utopian Visions. RIBORDY Genevieve Universite Laval, Quebec Le guide: un trait d'union entre la culture savante et la culture populaire. ROCHER Marie-Claude Universite Laval, Quebec Fetes populaires et histoire. SAMPLASKI Artie, University of Indiana The Middle Ages, Our Current Age and the Current Middle Ages. SCHUBERT Linda, University of Michigan Plainchant for the Pictures: The Use of the "Dies Irae" in Film Scores. SHARP Michael D., University of Michigan Adventures in the Hypermasculine: Medieval Scotland Goes to the Movies. VALOIS Jeanne, Universite Laval, Quebec La communication de l'histoire par le biais de la fete medievale. WILLARD Tom, University of Arizona Alchemical Gold: Worth More Than Ever. WILSON Robert, City University of New York English Storytelling --Beowulf and Rap. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Wednesday, 31 Jan 1996 11:15:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Call for Papers I'm forwarding this call for papers on behalf of a colleague who is not a member of the list. THe next RMMLA annual convention in beautiful Albuquerque, NM, should be a particularly festive one since we shall be celebrating our 50th anniversary. Regards. Evelyn Gajowski shakespe@nevada.edu Past President, RMMLA ***********CALL FOR PAPERS*********** *Feminist Perspectives on Renaissance Drama* A session of the 50th Annual Convention of the Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association Albuquerque, New Mexico 24-26 October 1996 Send abstracts or papers by 15 March written on/from any of the (many) Feminist Perspectives on Renaissance Drama to the following: Martha Rust Department of English 322 Wheeler University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 or: mrust@uclink4.berkeley.edu NOTE: Papers selected for inclusion in this session are eligible for RMMLA's annual Cecilia Konchar Farr (best feminist essay) Award. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 15:39:05 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0089 Re: Working; 3 Hours; Mysticism; The Jew; FE Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0089. Thursday, 1 February 1996. (1) From: W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 12:48:55 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Theatrical Working Conditions and Mysticism (2) From: Joanne Whalen Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 17:13:20 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0084 Q: Three Hours After Marriage (3) From: Susan Mather Date: Wednesday, 31 Jan 1996 19:35:09 +73900 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0083 Re: Mysticism (4) From: Florence Amit Date: Thursday, 01 Feb 1996 16:45:27 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0068 The Jew in Early English Literature (5) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 23:57:08 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0048 Re: "A Funeral Elegy" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 12:48:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Theatrical Working Conditions and Mysticism This is a reply to two recent requests for reading material. Unfortunately, I don't have the names of the original requestors. But for the person wondering about theatrical working conditions, you might look at the work of Muriel Bradbrook. For the person working on mysticism, Michel de Certeau's _The Mystic Fable_ might be of use. My apologies for losing your names, and further apologies if these suggestions are redundant. W. Russell Mayes, Jr. University of North Carolina at Asheville wmayes@unca.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Whalen Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 17:13:20 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0084 Q: Three Hours After Marriage This is in response to your request about this play. My information came from Dr. Robert Smallwood, Director of Education at the Shakespeare Centre. We are setting up a course for June, and when he sent me the list of plays we would be seeing, his list included on June 18 *Three Hours after Marriage* in the Swan Theater at Stratford. He was working from a preview of the final draft of the RSC performance schedule. RSC schedules should be mailed this week, so I would expect to receive mine within two weeks. I have no further information yet except the date and theater. By the way, what is the adress for the RSC's web page? Thanks, Joanne (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Wednesday, 31 Jan 1996 19:35:09 +73900 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0083 Re: Mysticism Hi! Just wanted to send out a general message to thank all of you for the information about mysticism. Keep it coming! I'm all ears- Take Care--Susan Mather (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Florence Amit Date: Thursday, 01 Feb 1996 16:45:27 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0068 The Jew in Early English Literature >>A 1996 NEH Summer Seminar for College Teaching: >> >>ABSENCE AND PRESENCE: THE JEW IN EARLY ENGLISH LITERATURE. Perhaps applicants would like to know Prof. Spector's e-mail address. It is: SSPECTOR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 23:57:08 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0048 Re: "A Funeral Elegy" Foster says of the "Funeral Elegy" that he would be "happy to see any criticism of any kind, including even the less sophisticated "ohh, it's yucky," variety...." But how else can we judge a poem but by it's poetic worth -- a judgement of whether it is "yucky" or not? The FE is a third rate poem, at best, and is an amateur effort I would guess. It lacks all depth of thought, originality, or excellence of language. It's like a long babbling stream that is shallow the whole length There is not an arresting image or memorable line in the whole of it. If I am wrong about this, let someone pluck something out of it that is worthy of Shakespeare or any second rate Elizabethan poet. The thing is 579 lines long, and I find nothing in it above the level of a Hallmark verse. As to my "less sophisticated" opinion -- less sophisticated than what? Is Foster speaking about a computer, some program perhaps that dices poems? I only suppose he is, but I don't know. But supposing that he is, and some computer has pronounced the FE to be by Shakespeare, let one thing be remembered. A computer is entirely devoid of human experience, and cannot tell the difference between "The Owl and the Pussycat" or one of Shakespeare's sonnets, whether to weep, or laugh, or to be stunned by some understanding of the human condition. No computer will ever be able to help us in this. That's the profound difference between humans and computers, and the reason I consider my judgement (or anyone's judgement who has read much poetry), to be sufficient to say that if Shakespeare wrote the FE he had grown feeble in his mind, wasteful of words, forgetful of his genius, and dottering in his wisdom to write such a tiresome farewell to a friend. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 15:45:48 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0090 Re: The Sonnets; Qs: Female Editors; Stage Directions Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0090. Thursday, 1 February 1996. (1) From: John Chapot< JCPO@aol.com> Date: Thursday, 1 Feb 1996 02:48:07 -0500 Subj: Re: The Sonnets. All of 'em (2) From: Julie Bleha Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 14:22:47 -0500 (EST) Subj: re: Pericles/Marina/women (3) From: Robert Robin Fenn Date: Thursday, 1 Feb 1996 12:16:24 -0800 (PST) Subj: Exit Matachin Style (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Chapot< JCPO@aol.com> Date: Thursday, 1 Feb 1996 02:48:07 -0500 Subject: Re: The Sonnets. All of 'em For an entertaining (conjectural) depiction of the homoerotic origin of the sonnets read Anthony Burgess' "Nothing Like the Sun". Lots of doublet-ripping. John Chapot San Francisco (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julie Bleha Date: Tuesday, 30 Jan 1996 14:22:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: re: Pericles/Marina/women Hi everyone, here is my first request for information from subscribers to this list. I am finishing up a (now very late) paper on female editorship of Shakespeare (or the lack thereof, up to this time). As part of the paper, I am looking at reworking the recognition scene in *Pericles*. I would greatly appreciate references to any **recent** articles/books on either/both of these topics. Thanks, Julie Bleha jb246@columbia.edu Columbia University Workhouse Theater (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Robin Fenn Date: Thursday, 1 Feb 1996 12:16:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Exit Matachin Style I am editing William Percy's _Faery Pastorall_ and I'm stumped by a stage direction which calls for an unusual exit. A fatigued character who is too tired to walk off the stage is to be carried off. The stage direction is "Here they bore him furth on their shoulders after the old manner of the Matachine on all Fowre with more companie for the cleanlyer Portage." I have read Thoinot Arbeau's description of the matachin or bouffon, but he merely states that the dancers withdraw after the dance, with no hint of any needing to be borne off. I would appreciate any information which might help me discover if the English version was more like a real duel, with one or more of the dancers feigning injury or death, and therefore needing to be carried off; or if there is any other information which might help me gloss this adequately. My guess is that two other characters would come on (hence on all four) and bear him off on their shoulders much like pallbearers carry a coffin. Any ideas? Robin Fenn rfenn@unixg.ubc.ca========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 11:47:01 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0091 Re: Shakespeare and the Bible Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0091. Saturday, 3 February 1996. (1) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Thursday, 1 Feb 1996 15:57:39 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0086 Re: Shakespeare and the Bible (2) From: Steven Marx Date: Thursday, 1 Feb 1996 14:05:32 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0086 Re: Shakespeare and the Bible (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Thursday, 1 Feb 1996 15:57:39 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0086 Re: Shakespeare and the Bible Paul Franssen is right in that earlier Bibles had the same words, Shake and speare in "nearly" the same positions, but not in exactly the same positions, which is the point of course. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Marx Date: Thursday, 1 Feb 1996 14:05:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0086 Re: Shakespeare and the Bible The current Shakespeare Survey contains an essay dealing with Shakespeare and the Bible: "Holy War in Henry V." It's also available on the Web at http://luigi.calpoly.edu/Marx/Publications/henry.html Steven Marx ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 11:55:42 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0092 Re: Funeral Elegy by W.S.; Cross-Dressing Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0092. Saturday, 3 February 1996. (1) From: John Boni Date: Thursday, 1 Feb 1996 16:45:39 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0089 Re: FE (2) From: Terry Ross Date: Friday, 2 Feb 1996 13:22:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: Funeral Elegy by W.S. (long) (3) From: Michael Yogev Date: Friday, 2 Feb 1996 17:16:53 +0200 (WET) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0085 Re: Cross-Dressing (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Thursday, 1 Feb 1996 16:45:39 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0089 Re: FE Richard J. Kennedy's remarks on a computer's esthetic taste (judgment?) in regards to the quality of *A Funeral Elegy*, remind me of an incident of a few years ago. I was a member of an English Department at a university other the one where I currently serve. We had a lively department colloquium series. On one presentation a colleague did a computers and poetry presentation in which he showed rather proudly how he had programmed a computer to write a program arrayed as an E. E. Cummings poem would appear. This achievement told us something about Cummings' work, and given the state of "computer literacy" at the time, was no small feat. However, a colleague in the audience attacked the mechanistic nature of the proposal, concluding that the computer would be unable to comment on the difference between "after many a summer dies the swan," [I hope I've recalled it accurately] and "after many a winter dies the duck." He had (and still has) a point. Once we acknowledge our subjectivity, we can then compare judgments. Wasn't is Pope who wrote, "Wits, like watches, go no two alike." (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry Ross Date: Friday, 2 Feb 1996 13:22:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Funeral Elegy by W.S. (long) I'm disappointed that, despite Foster's request, there hasn't been more discussion of the Funeral Elegy attributed to Shakespeare. Most of what I've seen has been either blanket dismissal or qualified approval. I posted some remarks about the elegy to the Shakespeare newsgroup, but there was no response to speak of, so I'll reply to the recent attack in this forum. I apologize to those who have already seen much of this. I don't know whether the elegy is by Shakespeare. I don't find the evidence some have seen in the apparently autobiographical nuggets in the poem (see lines 137-148, 205-244, 539-572), but then I haven't found attempts to mine the sonnets for Shakespearean autobiography very persuasive either. I haven't reviewed the stylistic evidence for Shakespeare's authorship, but my own impression is that if it's Shakespeare it must, judging by prosody alone, come quite late. Yet I find myself coming around on the question of the elegy's quality. At first I found it flat and uninspired, and certainly it has passages that are quite weak: "Now therein lived he happy, if to be / Free from detraction happiness it be" (49-50). However, as I read the elegy again, I find passages of considerable power. Consider these lines (463-74): Birth, blood, and ancestors, are none of ours, Nor can we make a proper challenge to them But virtues and perfections in our powers Proceed most truly from us, if we do them. Respective titles or a gracious style With all what men in eminence possess, Are, without ornaments to praise them, vile: The beauty of the mind is nobleness. And such as have that beauty, well deserve Eternal characters, that after death Remembrance of their worth we may preserve, So that their glory die not with their breath. This is certainly not pedestrian. My first time through, I thought "if we do them" a clumsy anticlimax (we don't "do" virtue the way one might "do" windows), but now it seems quite skillful. The placement of "do them" makes a moral imperative out of what might otherwise be an easy sententiousness. Even stronger is the placement of the word "vile"--the disgust expressed is certainly of a kind we are familiar with in late Shakespeare (or in Ben Jonson, though had he written this Elegy, it would have been better). Yet the best line in this passage is surely the last. There has been comment in SHAKSPER on the remarkable enjambment in the poem. One of the most powerful examples is in these lines (483-86): Look hither then, you that enjoy the youth Of your best days, and see how unexpected Death can betray your jollity to ruth When death you think is least to be respected! There is always at least a slight expectation that a line of poetry is a syntactical unit--a phrase, a clause, a sentence. When we read verse, even enjambed verse, we often insert a pause even if there is no punctuation at the end of a line. There is no punctuation after the word "unexpected" in the passage above, and the first word of the next line, "Death," comes as a surprise, just as (so the poet warns us) it may in life. There are many other passages worthy of an excellent poet: Not in the outside of disgraceful folly, Courting opinion with unfit disguise, (91-92) those weak houses of our brittle flesh (189) low-leveled in a narrow grave (194) the current of besotted passion (274) time's strict flinty hand (552) Or consider this wonderful, almost Miltonic description of Christ (367-70): he, who to the universal lapse Gave sweet redemption, offering up his blood To conquer death by death, and loose the traps Of hell In short, this poem, though admittedly uneven, is not the work of a hack or a bumbler. I believe this poem would be worthy of our attention even if we knew it were not by Shakespeare. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Friday, 2 Feb 1996 17:16:53 +0200 (WET) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0085 Re: Cross-Dressing Once more into this cross-dressing breach. On a more contemporary level, I was truly intrigued by the visible audience response to the Cheek by Jowls company's performance of AYLI here in Tel Aviv last year. An all-male cast, the actors first all took the stage in an ordered series of rows, all half-dressed in evening wear (white ruffled shirts, dress black trousers, suspenders). At this point, one of the actors who would play Jacques began to declaim the "All the world's a stage, and the men and women..." upon which those actors who would play women in the play shifted to a group stage-right, and the men shifted stage-left. They all exeunt here, and Act 1, Scene 1 began with the two men playing Rosalind and Celia, dressed in long clinging silk gowns, sitting on cushions and caressing one another through the opening dialogues. There was no attempt to give them breasts, and Rosalind was played by a short-haired black man who wore a silk scarf banded around his head and trailing down his side. The combination of homoeroticism and racial difference left many of the male spectators visibly squirming. Just one of the many superb bits put in by the director, Terry Donohue (I think??--don't have my program here at the moment). My point is that the audience reaction, then as now, to such cross-dressing hinges very much on the contemporary conception (or lack of same) of conventional vs. unconventional or even unnatural sexual conduct. I am not convinced that the staging I describe above would have been nearly as unsettling to Shakespeare's contemporaries as it was to my macho fellow Israelis. Michael Yogev University of Haifa ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 11:58:56 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0093. Saturday, 3 February 1996. From: Suzanne Lewis Date: Friday, 2 Feb 1996 07:39:25 -0700 Subject: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? Friends in Shakespeare, This afternoon, I learned of a thought-provoking theory shared by two of my colleagues. Justine Centanni and Art Garbosky contend that Hamlet and Ophelia had sexual relations in between Hamlet's slaying of Polonius and his departure for England. Ergo, this would explain Ophelia's madness as a response to her learning that Hamlet killed Polonius. Mad or not, why would Ophelia repeatedly request of the Queen, "Pray you mark", asking Gertrude to listen to her songs? Consider: Tomorrow is Saint Valentine's day, All in the morning betime, And I a maid at your window, To be your Valentine. Then up he rose and donned his clo'es And dupped the chamber door, Let in the maid, that out a maid Never departed more. By Gis and by Saint Charity, Alack, and fie for shame! Young men will do't if they come to't. By Cock, they are to blame. Quoth she, "Before you tumbled me, You promised me to wed." He answers: "So would I 'a' done, by yonder sun, An thou hadst not come to my bed." [IV.v.50-57, 60-68] My colleagues and I wonder, what do you all think? Are they just songs that mean nothing, or do you see any evidence that Hamlet and Ophelia made love? Please offer your thoughts, impressions, and instincts. Also, can you lead us to published critical analysis to support this theory? Thanks. Dramatically, Suzanne Lewis lewis@syspac.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 16:21:33 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0094 SHAKSPER's Hiatus Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0094. Thursday, 8 February 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, February 2, 1996 Subject: Hiatus SHAKSPEReans: I am sorry for the irregular service over the past two weeks. The reason for the first week's few digests was a family matter. Concerning the second, sometime before Saturday LISTSERV went down. We are in the midst of a university-wide technological make-over and the UNIX guru simply did not have the time to fix the problem. I did eventually get Technical Support from L-Soft to take care of it. February looks to be a very busy month for me, so please bear with me. My mailbox topped 130 messages by the time LISTSERV went back on-line. It will probably take a few days for me to catch up. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 08:48:18 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0095 Re: "A Funeral Elegy" Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0095. Friday, 9 February 1996. (1) From: Don Foster Date: Saturday, 03 Feb 1996 14:07:33 -0400 (EDT) Subj: "A Funeral Elegy" (2) From: Bernard Frischer Date: Saturday, 03 Feb 1996 Subj: Conference on 'A Funeral Elegy' (3) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 2 Feb 1996 11:35:15 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0089 Re: Funeral Elegy (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 02 Feb 1996 16:00:52 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0089 Re: FE (5) From: William Proctor Williams Date: Thursday, 08 Feb 96 16:29 CST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0092 Re: Funeral Elegy by W.S. (6) From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, February 9, 1996 Subj: FE (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Saturday, 03 Feb 1996 14:07:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "A Funeral Elegy" Thanks to Richard Kennedy for his example of the "ooh it's yucky" school of criticism. For a similar response, SHAKSPERians are directed to the piece by Stanley Wells in the current issue of TLS (which will be answered by Prof. Rick Abrams in a forthcoming issue [Feb. 9?]). It is a always a good idea, of course, to make sure that one knows what one is talking about before going on record. Illuminating are Mr. Kennedy's remarks, "I would guess.... If I am wrong about this,...I find nothing in it above the level of a Hallmark verse....Is Foster speaking about a computer, some program perhaps that dices poems? I only suppose he is, but I don't know. But supposing that he is,...I consider my judgement (or anyone's judgement who has read much poetry), to be sufficient..." Those who have already done their homework, or who attended either the SAA or MLA sessions, are aware that our problem is not, "Why doesn't Richard Kennedy LIKE this poem?" but rather, why didn't Shakespeare write it more in keeping with Richard Kennedy's (and, indeed, my own) sense of aesthetic value? A question to be asked. Stay tuned. Don Foster (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernard Frischer Date: Saturday, 03 Feb 1996 Subject: Conference on 'A Funeral Elegy' CONFERENCE ON 'A FUNERAL ELEGY' Friday, February 9, 1996 2:00 - 4:00 p.m. in 121 Dodd Hall, UCLA (Admission is free) You are cordially invited to attend the first conference to be held on Prof. Donald Foster's important discovery of a new 578- line elegy published in 1612 by W.S., whom scholars generally agree was William Shakespeare. Prof. Foster found the poem among UCLA's microfilm copies of the holdings of the Bodleian Library. Conference Schedule: 2:00-2:10 Prof. Robert Watson (UCLA), Welcome 2:10-2:30 Prof. David Holmes (University of the West of England), "Authorship Studies Today" 2:30-3:00 Prof. Donald Foster (Vassar), "'A Funeral Elegy' by W.S.: The Argument for Attributing the Poem to William Shakespeare" (with a reading of highlights of the poem) 3:00-3:20 Prof. Lars Engle (University of Oklahoma), "The Significance of 'A Funeral Elegy' for Our Understanding of Shakespeare's Life and Works" 3:20-3:30 Prof. Stephen Booth (University of California, Berkeley), "Where Will We Go from Here?" 3:30-4:00 DISCUSSION This conference has been organized by Prof. Bernard Frischer (UCLA) and is co-sponsored by the UCLA Center for Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Studies, the UCLA Center for European and Russian Studies, the UCLA Department of Classics, the UCLA Department of English, the UCLA Humanities Computing Facility, the UCLA Office of the Education Abroad Program, and the Dept. of English of Loyola Marymount University. For further information please call: (310) 825-1867. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 2 Feb 1996 11:35:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0089 Re: Funeral Elegy I heartily agree with Richard Kennedy's opinion of The Funeral Elegy. I am stunned that leading Shakespeareans are promoting it as Shakespeare's work. However "impeccable" the scholarship, it won't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, or convince your ordinary reader that day is night. The Times article used scornful terms for the idea that either Shall I Die, Shall I Fly or The Birth of Merlin are Shakespeare's, but either one is far more eligible than this interminable, unscannable, unreadable piece; Shall I Fly, since it is obviously a song lyric, where standards are much different than other kinds of poetry, and Merlin because whatever the difficulties, it SOUNDS like early Shakespeare, which this Funeral Elegy does not. As for machines, they must be asked the right questions to give worthwhile answers, and in any case, no machine can ever replace the human ear, mind and heart. The deaf use a machine to approximate what they have lost in nature. I can only surmise that these "experts" have somehow lost these functions. The emperor appears to be naked folks. I think I'll have another look at Venus and Adonis. Stephanie Hughes (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 02 Feb 1996 16:00:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0089 Re: FE Richard Kennedy comments: > It lacks all depth of thought, originality, or >excellence of language. It's like a long babbling stream that is shallow the >whole length There is not an arresting image or memorable line in the whole of >it. If I am wrong about this, let someone pluck something out of it that is >worthy of Shakespeare or any second rate Elizabethan poet. The thing is 579 >lines long, and I find nothing in it above the level of a Hallmark verse. I recently reread the "Elegy" -- encouraged by Don Foster's enthusiasm. I first read it several years ago because of Don's enthusiasm. Unfortunately, I have to agree with Richard's evaluation of the poem. It seems to be totally forgettable. After wading through it -- in Don's edition -- I am not convinced that the poem is in a recognizable Shakespearean style. The "plain style" argument doesn't diminish that impression -- and admittedly it is an impression. And I am not convinced that this poem will be readily accepted into the canon. If George Eld -- the printer and apparently the publisher (no publisher is named on the titlepage) -- knew that the poem was by Shakespeare, wouldn't he have placed Shakespeare's name on the titlepage? He certainly did so when he printed the sonnets and *Troilus and Cressida*. Apparently S.s name sold books. What kept Eld from using his name? I realize that this question is almost impossible to answer -- successfully. Yours, Bill Godshalk (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Proctor Williams Date: Thursday, 08 Feb 96 16:29 CST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0092 Re: Funeral Elegy by W.S. Look, both the "Funeral Elegy" and "Shall I Die. . . ." are probably by W.S. If one reads them one can easily see why a 'good' poet wouldn't want them associated with his name. This is not the 'Holy Grail,' the 'Holy Grail' is any bit of lit 'use your own definition of what that means' in WS's 'own hand.' One only has to look to the Donne Variorum to see into how many forms an author's works may be transmuted without his hand ever coming near the paper. Interesting as it all may be, what we need to find is something that WS inscribed himself, not what other did for him. Sorry for the tone of this, but I find both Taylor's and Foster's claims both compelling and uninteresting. (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, February 9, 1996 Subject: FE I don't really have the time right now to get into this discussion, but I liked the "Elegy," finding interesting turns of phrase and totally weird passages that bear further scrutiny. At some point, I would also like to offer some of my reasons for my fondness for *Venus and Adonis* -- a poem I find very sexy and very funny and a poem I believe has many resemblances to the *Sonnets*. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 10:49:55 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0096 Qs: CD ROM; Abridged MND; Middlemen; Sh. in NYC Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0096. Friday, 9 February 1996. (1) From: Kathleen Brookfield Date: Saturday, 3 Feb 96 13:17:00 -0500 Subj: Shakespeare on CD ROM (2) From: Stephen J. Gagen Date: Saturday, 3 Feb 1996 01:48:31 +1100 (EST) Subj: Wanted: Abridged Midummer Night's Dream (3) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 03 Feb 1996 15:46:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: Middle Men and Money (4) From: JeanSebastien LaTour Date: Thursday, 8 Feb 1996 20:10:54 -0500 (EST) Subj: [Shakespeare in NYC] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Brookfield Date: Saturday, 3 Feb 96 13:17:00 -0500 Subject: Shakespeare on CD ROM I quote a message written by a man whose first language is not English. He is very interested in literature, but finds Shakespeare difficult to understand. "Would it not be great if we can buy a CD with the play on, you can stop it, click on for an explanation. ( for block-heads who need one..). Well.. that would be the ticket!" First, if such an educational tool exists (an electronic Arden edition), I would like to know. If not, the idea is free to any with entrepreneurial leanings. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen J. Gagen Date: Saturday, 3 Feb 1996 01:48:31 +1100 (EST) Subject: Wanted: Abridged Midummer Night's Dream Does anyone know of an abridged version of "A Midsummer Night's Dream?" Either published in book form, or available somewhere on the Net? My wife requires a shorter version for use with secondary school students. Steve Gagen. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 03 Feb 1996 15:46:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Middle Men and Money Does anybody know of any good (recent or old) studies on middlemen in Shakespeare's comedies? By Middlemen I do not simply mean Pandarus or Don Pedro (both ineffectual), but also Antonio's money, the fairy/ love juice seem to function like middlemen. And though this can be a mere plot device, it seems that there is also something else going on. I guess I'm thinking of things in terms of the last half of THE WINTER'S TALE, and the "innocence" of Florizel and Perdita is highlighted by, among other things, their refusal to "come to the pedddlar" for "money's a meddler" and in this they are contrasted with the lovers in just about every other comedy I mentioned (I'm purposely ignoring AYLI and 12N for the time being).Any comments, or suggestions for further reading, would be appreciated. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JeanSebastien LaTour Date: Thursday, 8 Feb 1996 20:10:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Shakespeare in NYC] Hello everybody, Does anybody know if I can find a good production of any of Shakespeare's plays in NYC ? Tell me when and where if possible. Thank you and have a good day Jean-Sebastien ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 11:06:48 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0097 Announcements: Columbia Seminar; Festival; MLA; CFP Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0097. Friday, 9 February 1996. (1) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Tuesday, 06 Feb 1996 14:09:07 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Columbia University Shakespeare Seminar (2) From: Diana Sweeney Date: Saturday, 3 Feb 1996 22:49:45 -0500 Subj: Shakespeare Festival (3) From: Joanne Woolway Date: Monday, 5 Feb 1996 09:49:46 +0000 (GMT) Subj: MLA (4) From: Jack Lynch Date: Monday, 5 Feb 1996 19:54:58 -0500 (EST) Subj: CALLS FOR PAPERS (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Tuesday, 06 Feb 1996 14:09:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Columbia University Shakespeare Seminar On Feb. 9th, at the Columbia University Shakespeare Seminar, Bill Carroll (Boston U.) will speak on "Fat King, Lean Beggar: *2 Henry VI and the Discourse of Poverty." All are welcome. Libations at 5 pm, dinner at 6:30, and meeting at 7:30, at Faculty House, 117th and Mornignside Heights (enter on 116th st). For further information, contact Bernice W. Kliman, 516-671-1301. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Diana Sweeney Date: Saturday, 3 Feb 1996 22:49:45 -0500 Subject: Shakespeare Festival The Drama Teachers Association of So. California will be holding its annual High School Shakespeare Festival on March 16, 1996. We are seeking people with an academic/theatrical knowledge of the works of Shakespeare to be judges for the competition. There is no pay involved unless you can bank the "psychic dollars" that Jerry Brown talks of but we will give you a great lunch and an incredible day of Shakespeare as interpreted by the diverse student population of So. California. If you are interested in helping judge and would like further information, you may contact me directly through the above e-mail address. Thank you. Diana Sweeney (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Woolway Date: Monday, 5 Feb 1996 09:49:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: MLA MLA Session Proposalfor 1996 Convention in Washington D.C. I'm hoping to propose a panel on geography and literature. I'd welcome explorations of representations of place, culture, cartography, colonization, developing notions of landscape depiction, or theories of words and pictures in relation to map or other illustrations in early modern texts. Abstracts or papers should be sent to me at Oriel College, Oxford, OX1 4EW, England or joanne.woolway@oriel.ox.ac.uk or emls@sable.ox.ac.uk by March 15th. Thanks, Joanne Woolway (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Lynch Date: Monday, 5 Feb 1996 19:54:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: CALLS FOR PAPERS I apologize for the extensive cross-posting, but believe many subscribers should find this new list useful. Please direct queries not to this list, but to Jack Lynch at jlynch@english.upenn.edu. ===================== cfp@english.upenn.edu ===================== Calls for Papers in English & American Literature For the last two years, the English Department at the University of Pennsylvania has kept a collection of calls for papers, conference announcements, etc., on English and American literature, on Penn's English Web and English Gopher. To facilitate the exchange of information on upcoming conferences and publication opportunities, Penn English has created an electronic mailing list, cfp@english.upenn.edu. We encourage conference or panel organizers and volume editors to find the largest possible audience for their announcements by posting them on this list. Announcements can include upcoming conferences, panels, essay collections, and special journal issues related to English and American literature, and can include calls for completed papers, abstracts, and proposals. The boundaries are flexible: all English-language literatures, cultural studies, queer theory, bibliography, humanities computing, and comparative literature (even when not concerned specifically with English or American literature) are within the pale. Conferences or panels devoted exclusively to literature not in English, to music or art, to history, etc., are excluded unless they are relevant to students of English and American literature, as are lecture series, regular meetings of small local societies, fellowship opportunities, etc. ----------- SUBSCRIBING ----------- To subscribe to the list, address a message to listserv@english.upenn.edu Do NOT send subscription messages to cfp@english.upenn.edu. The subject line can be anything, but the body of the message should read subscribe cfp There should be nothing else: no name, no E-mail address. You should receive a confirmation message after a few minutes. If you have any questions, contact Jack Lynch at the address below. ------------------------ ARCHIVE OF ANNOUNCEMENTS ------------------------ Those interested in the calls for papers need not subscribe to the list directly. The announcements will be archived (within a few days of their posting) and available on the World Wide Web at http://www.english.upenn.edu/CFP/ and on the English Gopher at gopher://gopher.english.upenn.edu/11/Announce/CFP There they'll be grouped under rubrics (such as Renaissance, American, Theory, Gender Studies) to make browsing easier. They'll remain there until the conference has taken place. Please check to see whether they've been posted already before sending additional copies. --------------------- POSTING ANNOUNCEMENTS --------------------- All panel organizers and volume editors are encouraged to make their calls for papers or proposals on cfp@english.upenn.edu. Calls can take any format in the body of the message. The subject line, though, should be as informative as possible (to enable browsers to find relevant announcements quickly), and should take the following form: CFP: Topic of Conference (deadline; conference date) Messages that don't conform to this standard may be rejected. The subject line has to fit in 67 characters, so be both brief and clear in describing the topic of the conference. Some tips: * Rather than a cryptic panel title like "Imagined Encounters," use a descriptive entry like "New World in 16th c." * Put dates in numerals, in American notation (month/day). Specify the year only if the conference is more than a year in the future. Include both the deadline for submissions and the date of the conference. * In the case of major conferences where the name of the conference will be more useful than the dates (e.g., MLA, ASECS, NASSR, Kalamazoo), specify that instead. * If the conference takes place outside North America, or if it's a graduate-student conference, note that as well. Some examples: CFP: Communities & Communication (10/2; 12/1-12/2) CFP: Inst. for Early Am. Hist. & Culture (9/30; 5/31-6/2) CFP: Improvisation & Virtuosity (3/1; MLA) CFP: 18th-c. Short Story (8/18; ASECS) CFP: Romanticism in Theory (Denmark) (2/1; 6/28-6/30) CFP: Meaning in Middle Ages & Ren (grad) (6/30; 9/29-9/30) --------- ETIQUETTE --------- Preface the subject lines of all announcements with "CFP," and make the descriptions as clear as possible, to enable subscribers to sort through incoming mail. Please check to see whether announcements have already appeared on the list before sending additional copies. Remember, it may take several days for an announcement on the list to appear on the English Web or in the English Gopher. In order to keep traffic to a minimum, the mailing list is strictly for announcements, not for discussions of conferences. Advertisements of commercial products or services not directly related to the purpose of the list are forbidden. ------------- OTHER MATTERS ------------- To unsubscribe, address a message to listserv@english (not cfp@english.upenn.edu!) reading just "unsubscribe cfp" (don't include your name or address). If you have any questions, write to Jack Lynch at jlynch@english.upenn.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 11:26:23 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0098 Re: Cross-Dressing; Audio Oth; Bible; Sonnets Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0098. Friday, 9 February 1996. (1) From: Michael Yogev Date: Friday, 2 Feb 1996 17:16:53 +0200 (WET) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0085 Re: Cross-Dressing (2) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Monday, 5 Feb 1996 17:56:41 -0600 (CST) Subj: Audio OTHELLO (3) From: John Velz Date: Sunday, 4 Feb 1996 12:14:17 +0200 Subj: Shakespeare and the Bible (4) From: Monique Quinta Date: Saturday, 3 Feb 1996 23:44:58 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0083 Re: The Sonnets all of 'em (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Friday, 2 Feb 1996 17:16:53 +0200 (WET) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0085 Re: Cross-Dressing Once more into this cross-dressing breach. On a more contemporary level, I was truly intrigued by the visible audience response to the Cheek by Jowls company's performance of AYLI here in Tel Aviv last year. An all-male cast, the actors first all took the stage in an ordered series of rows, all half-dressed in evening wear (white ruffled shirts, dress black trousers, suspenders). At this point, one of the actors who would play Jacques began to declaim the "All the world's a stage, and the men and women..." upon which those actors who would play women in the play shifted to a group stage-right, and the men shifted stage-left. They all exeunt here, and Act 1, Scene 1 began with the two men playing Rosalind and Celia, dressed in long clinging silk gowns, sitting on cushions and caressing one another through the opening dialogues. There was no attempt to give them breasts, and Rosalind was played by a short-haired black man who wore a silk scarf banded around his head and trailing down his side. The combination of homoeroticism and racial difference left many of the male spectators visibly squirming. Just one of the many superb bits put in by the director, Terry Donohue (I think??--don't have my program here at the moment). My point is that the audience reaction, then as now, to such cross-dressing hinges very much on the contemporary conception (or lack of same) of conventional vs. unconventional or even unnatural sexual conduct. I am not convinced that the staging I describe above would have been nearly as unsettling to Shakespeare's contemporaries as it was to my macho fellow Israelis. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Monday, 5 Feb 1996 17:56:41 -0600 (CST) Subject: Audio OTHELLO Tunis Romein is looking for an audio version of Olivier's OTHELLO. I can't say for sure where to buy it now but there is a very good recording of that wonderful production. It was put out by RCA Victor in 1964. The RCA number for it is VDM-100. It is a boxed set with the script as used in the production and with a great book of pictures. Good luck. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Sunday, 4 Feb 1996 12:14:17 +0200 Subject: Shakespeare and the Bible Most SHAKSPER correspondents seem to be taking the business about Ps. 46 seriously at one level or another. Like John Cox, I first heard this "attribution" more than a quarter century ago. It was being taken then as a spoof of the cryptograms that are sometimes proposed to prove Sh. was written by Bacon or someone else. The best such spoof is the essay published in the 1930s by Ronald Knox, the chaplain of the Catholic students at Oxford and later translator of the Bible: "On the Authorship of *In Memoriam*". With a lot of cryptic gobbledegook and a perfectly straight face he demonstrates that *In Memoriam* was not written by Tennyson, but by Queen Victoria as a love poem addressed to Prince Albert. (Or was it the other way around?). It seems curious to me that Shakespeare should be seen by anyone as translating the Psalms. Richmond Noble demonstrated long ago (1935; *Shakespeare's Use of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer*) that Shakespeare was very fond of Thomas Cranmer's translation of the Psalms, which he remembers in his many Psalm echoes, while all the while drawing the rest of his Bible echoes first from the Bishops' and (beginning in 1597) sometimes from the Geneva. (His memory of Bishops and Cranmer together probably shows his childhood of attendance at Holy Trinity, Stratford, where both were used in services.) Many of Naseeb Shaheen's significant points about Shakespeare's debt to the Bible first appeared in Noble. In his several publications on the subject, Shaheen credits Noble generally but not in many particular cases, where the casual scholar may credit Shaheen with Noble's insights. John W. Velz University of Texas (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Monique Quinta Date: Saturday, 3 Feb 1996 23:44:58 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0083 Re: The Sonnets all of 'em I'm entering this discussion late so if my suggestions are repeats of others I'm sorry. The problems that a performance of all the sonnets presents is very challenging. I say try it- regardless of running time. But treat it as one single while show rather than a collection of many individual sonnets. This gives you much creative control over the final product. Decide if its a tragedy or a comedy. Evaluate it the way you would a regular play. Mix up the elements so just about the itme you've got the audience rolling the aisles make a sudden change and send them home crying. Change the order if need be to better bring about the ending you've chosen. A few different treatments maybe: Use the redundancy Of subject that appears in many of the sonnets with a comic twist perhaps by becoming more and more weighed down with outlandish props mentioned in each of the sonnets. Maybe create a few oddball characters who all cry out their woes with the Bard's voice. Choose a few that are not your favoirtes and have similar themes (in your interpretation) and save some time by merely blurting out the first lines and moving on the more moving pieces. (Also by your interpretation) Apply the cross dressing discussion of late and deliver some sonnets as a woman and reply with the next as a man. Get sexually involved with yourself as the two identities draw closer and closer. And the possibilites are endless. I suppose with all that might be going on with such a performance that many may be concerned that the beauty of the poetry will be lost. But the poetry can be saved by tying it into the chosen theme. Those sonnets which best describe the theme can be handled more straight forward. For example sonnet 18 can be treated with amusement at another person's obsession with youth and beauty or as comforting words for one on his death bed. One may make light of the poetry while the other may heavily weigh every word. I would like to know what you eventually decide and how it turns out. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 11:32:40 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0099 RSC Symposium; Hamlet Needed Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0099. Friday, 9 February 1996. (1) From: Gavin H Witt Date: Wednesday, 7 Feb 96 14:31:39 CST Subj: RSC Symposium (2) From: David R. Maier Date: Sunday, 4 Feb 1996 20:06:01 -0800 Subj: Hamlet Needed (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gavin H Witt Date: Wednesday, 7 Feb 96 14:31:39 CST Subject: RSC Symposium This is a notice to any and all list-members in the Chicago area. There has been much discussion of the current RSC tour of _Midsummer_; here is a chance to hear and engage with members of the company to discuss their current production and modern approaches to staging Shakespeare in general. Court Theatre, the professional classical theatre in residence at the University of Chicago, is sponsoring a joint symposium with the RSC on contemporary Shakespeare--ways of maintaining the vibrancy and life of classic plays, through staging, adaptation, design, educational outreach and whatever other means come to mind. Members of the theater and academic communities, or interested audience-members, are cordially invited to attend. Tickets are available from Court Theatre at (312) 753-4472 or show up FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 9TH at 4pm to attend the symposium. There is a nominal fee of $5 for entry. Should be a lively discussion. Court is located at 5535 S. Ellis Ave. in Hyde Park.. Gavin Witt ghwitt@midway.uchicago.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David R. Maier Date: Sunday, 4 Feb 1996 20:06:01 -0800 Subject: Hamlet Needed HELP! Tygres Heart Shakespeare Company in Portland, Oregon is scheduled to open its spring production of Hamlet on April 12, with rehearsals commencing the end of February. We have just lost the actor who was cast to play the role of Hamlet, and are desperately in search of recommendations for equity or non-equity actors qualified and available to perform the role. The run of the production is six weeks with performances Wednesday through Saturday nights, Sunday matinees, one Saturday family matinee (a 90 minute abbreviated version) and four daytime student matinees. The production will be directed by founding artistic director Jan Powell. Tygres Heart is a semi-professional company whose mission is "ferociously good Shakespeare in an intimate setting." The emphasis of the company is on text and not production values. Consequently, the actor cast must have a solid command of Shakespearean verse. All performances are in the Dolores Winningstad Theatre of the Portland Center for the Performing Arts. The space is a 250 seat house configured as an intimate Elizabethan courtyard theatre. Members of the Shakespeare Theatre Association of America may recall that this theatre was the site of last year's annual conference. We would appreciate any recommendations being e-mailed direct to dmaier@orednet.org. Resumes or other correspondence may be faxed direct to Tygres Heart at (503)222-4173. Thanks for your help David Maier dmaier@orednet.org ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 11:58:07 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0100 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0100. Friday, 9 February 1996. (1) From: Geoffrey T Wilson Date: Thursday, 8 Feb 1996 14:18:31 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (2) From: Richard W Bovard Date: Thursday, 8 Feb 1996 13:13:16 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (3) From: Kevin J. Donovan Date: Thursday, 8 Feb 1996 13:36:25 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (4) From: Ted Nellen Date: Thursday, 8 Feb 1996 18:33:15 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (5) From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Friday, 9 Feb 1996 12:01:12 +1100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (6) From: Andrew Tsao Date: Thursday, 8 Feb 1996 21:29:20 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (7) From: Louis Scheeder Date: Thursday, 8 Feb 1996 22:58:49 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (8) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 09 Feb 1996 08:27:28 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (9) From: Steve Sohmer Date: Friday, 9 Feb 1996 10:09:03 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (10) From: Monique Quinta Date: Friday, 9 Feb 1996 09:04:52 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (11) From: Reg Grouse Date: Friday, 9 Feb 1996 23:36:07 +1000 Subj: Ophelia-Hamlet sexual relationship (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Geoffrey T Wilson Date: Thursday, 8 Feb 1996 14:18:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? Concerning Hamlet and Ophelia's distinctly sexual relationship, one could also cite her description of the scene in her closet: My lord, as I was sewing in my closet, Lord Hamlet, with his doublet all unbrac'd, No hat uppon his head, his stockins fouled, Ungart'red, and down-gyved to his ankle.... He falls to such perusal of my face As 'a would draw it. Long stay'd he so. At last, a little shaking of mine arm, And thrice his head thus waving up and down, He rais'd a sigh so piteous and profound As it did seem to shatter all his bulk And end his being. That done, he lets me go (2.1.74-77, 87-93) It sounds a lot like sex, but Ophelia doesn't seem to recognize it as such. Maybe the "Valentine's Day" song registers a retrospective understanding of what happened in Act 2. Geoffrey Wilson SUNY-Buffalo gwilson@acsu.buffalo.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard W Bovard Date: Thursday, 8 Feb 1996 13:13:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? From the opening questions "Who's there?" to all the other questions: what does Gertrude know, how "adulterate" was Claudius and when, what does Claudius show at the play-within-the-play, etc., etc. The question, then, is appropriate, surely. From all that happens off-stage--Hamlet's appearance to Ophelia all out of fashion, Hamlet's sea voyage, etc., etc. The question, then, is appropriate, surely. From all the suggestions that men and women are spotted, corrupted, stained--that existence itself is defined by falling ("Virtue itself scapes not . . ."), etc., etc. The question, then, is appropriate, surely. But the evidence? Spotty. I once believed that I knew that the sexual relationship occurred before the play started. Thus, the songs could be used to read back to a past that predates Act I. Now, I am not sure. The question you asked forces me back to the text . . . and human experience. We know Hamlet is for England before the bedroom scene. Is his trip public knowledge? Does Ophelia know that he's leaving? Would Hamlet take the occasion for departure to do as so many men have done on the eve of departures? Certainly, Claudius's questions and comments after the bedroom scene take on interesting meanings as I think about this matter. "Where is he gone?" vibrates a bit more, now. Likewise, "How dangerous is it that this man goes loose!" becomes a curiously possible pun. But I do not think that we know. And the play asks us to accept the mystery of lot more than Hamlet's character. But, then, if "long purples" are called one thing by "cull-cold maids" and another thing by "liberal shepherds," Ophelia's language suggests that concern for her 'maiden' or 'liberal' nature should continue. Or are we falling into a sexist trap, worrying with Hamlet about a woman's goodness ("a woman stain'd") and with Laertes about a woman's weakness ("The woman will be out")? Thanks for the stimulation. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kevin J. Donovan Date: Thursday, 8 Feb 1996 13:36:25 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? I'm rather skeptical of there being any reason to believe that Hamlet and Ophelia had sexual relations. I find Harold Jenkins most convincing on this topic--see his critical introduction and notes in his Arden edition, as well as his 1963 British Academy lecture "Hamlet and Ophelia." (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ted Nellen Date: Thursday, 8 Feb 1996 18:33:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? I cannot support it with anything other than the text. I, too, have used this to support the same argument that they were lovers. I have always taught my kids to use the text to support their arguments. Outside sources I can't help you. Ted (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Friday, 9 Feb 1996 12:01:12 +1100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? Suzanne Lewis has just thrown us an oldie but a goodie: >This afternoon, I learned of a thought-provoking theory shared by two of my >colleagues. Justine Centanni and Art Garbosky contend that Hamlet and Ophelia >had sexual relations in between Hamlet's slaying of Polonius and his departure >for England. Ergo, this would explain Ophelia's madness as a response to her >learning that Hamlet killed Polonius. Now, I've heard this theory before - we all have, I'm sure - I didn't realise, though, that there were people so sure as to the when of it ... Any guesses on the where? >Mad or not, why would Ophelia repeatedly request of the Queen, "Pray you mark", >asking Gertrude to listen to her songs? I always thought the songs were a dead give-away, myself. >My colleagues and I wonder, what do you all think? Are they just songs that >mean nothing, or do you see any evidence that Hamlet and Ophelia made love? >Please offer your thoughts, impressions, and instincts. Also, can you lead us >to published critical analysis to support this theory? Thanks. I'm afraid all I relly have to pass on is an anecdote, reported with glee by one of my lecturers at the University o Western Australia. He told us about a public forum of some decription or another, with one of the Great Actors who had played the role a number of times (he DID supply a name - but I forget who's . . .). When said Great Actor was asked for some opinions on the Danish prince, the question inevitably came up: did Hamlet sleep with Ophelia? Apparently, his response was, "Well, I always did." My apologies for trivialising the debate - but I have always loved the story! Robert F. O'Connor rfo601@leonard.anu.edu.au Australian National University (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Tsao Date: Thursday, 8 Feb 1996 21:29:20 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? Since Shakespeare is not explicit, we can only play at guesses, for deciding on absolutes offstage is the road to foolishness. Each performer must decide for herself and himself. However, who is to say that they have not had sexual relations for quite some time before? Before Wittenberg, even? Finally, the simple answer is this: in our endeavor to make the dramatic choice, the answer is yes. Shakespeare the dramatist would, I think, have supported the choice. It raises the stakes. (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Scheeder Date: Thursday, 8 Feb 1996 22:58:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? Not to belittle in any way the question regarding the relationship of Hamlet and Ophelia, but I was reminded of the response to that question that goes, "Only in the Chicago company." Louis Scheeder (8)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 09 Feb 1996 08:27:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? Robert Speaight in his little book on Shakespeare's tragedies suggests something like this. I haven't read the book in years, but as I recall, Speaight suggests that Ophelia is pregnant, knows she is, and, given her present circumstances, takes the big dive and drowns herself. Gertrude's description is a cover up. When did Hamlet and Ophelia make love? I'm not sure at what point they did it -- in Speaight's scenario -- but I think it's pre-ghost. Yours (with a dim memory), Bill Godshalk (9)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Friday, 9 Feb 1996 10:09:03 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? The dramatic necessity surrounding the possiblity of sexual relations between Hamlet and Ophelia is that we wonder. The same dynamic is rehearsed in Othello. One of the respects in which the recent Othello film falls down is eradicating this doubt through a cinematic, but atextual coupling of the principals. The anxieties of Laertes and Polonius ought to be discounted; they are wrong about everything else. Ophelia's chanting in the "mad" scenes is a parody of the OT story of Jepthah's daughter, who "bewailed her virginity" for a month before she was sacrificed. In fact, "virginity" signifies dying before marrying and, particularly, without offspring. Ophelia's "virgin crants" were apparently hung in the church during her requiem. This suggests a need in the community to believe her a virgin. Those who read Hamlet as a Reformation chronicle detect glances at the BVM here. You might see an article, "Ophelia's Maimed Rites." Hope this helps. Steve Sohmer (10)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Monique Quinta Date: Friday, 9 Feb 1996 09:04:52 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? I have always believe that Hamlet and Ophelia were phyiscally involved. I believe that Ophelia kills herself because she has promised herself wholly to Hamlet - body and soul. First she is her father's and then she is Hamlet's. With both of these people gone there is nothing left for her. She is punished for coming to Hamlet before her father sends her there. She becomes her own judge jury; sinking deeply into depression and carrying out her own sentence of death. I don't think her babbling prior to her death is not an act of insanity but her comtemplations have brought into another plane. She is lost in the pain caused by the one act in which she made her own choice to commit. She is lost without these men to guide he. Her father is dead at her lover's hand and her lover has takrn away his promise (and himself too) and shortly later she herself is gone. (11)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Reg Grouse Date: Friday, 9 Feb 1996 23:36:07 +1000 Subject: Ophelia-Hamlet sexual relationship The question of Ophelia's pregnancy has been posed before as a reason for her madness and suicide. One critic, whose name I cannot recall, in an article full of vitriol against Hamlet suggested that, quite contrary to being a beautiful young prince, he was nothing but a callous cad who murdered Polonius, Guildenstern and Rosencrantz without remorse and worst of all he impregnated Ophelia only to abandon her when the mood suited him. Most audiences have had sympathy for Hamlet and his actions. He has been one of the most popular heroes of the Shakespearean stage. Auditors have seen him as an idealistic young man, an introvert, and with that golden quality of introverts; sensitivity. They tend to forgive his murders and other misdemeanours as unfortunate accidents. I believe that if Shakespeare had wanted us to think that Ophelia was Hamlet's lover, he would have given a clearer indication. The text suggests that she was a dutiful, chaste, daughter whose father's death was the reason for her distress and that the words of the songs were an indication of her madness rather than a literal description of her actions. Maybe Shakespeare intended the songs to represent Ophilia's sub-conscious repressed desires. It is an interesting question. Thank you for raising it, Suzanne. Reg Grouse regrouse@netspace.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 21:59:34 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0101. Saturday, 10 February 1996. (1) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Friday, 9 Feb 1996 13:57:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (2) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Friday, 9 Feb 1996 16:53:48 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0100 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (3) From: John Drakakis Date: Saturday, 10 Feb 1996 12:41:05 GMT Subj: RE: SHK 7.0100 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sex (4) From: Susan Mather Date: Saturday, February 10, 1996 Subj: Characters: Real. Fictive, or What? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Friday, 9 Feb 1996 13:57:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0093 Q: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? It's funny that this subject should come up on the list. It just came up in my Shakespeare class, where several students argued that the songs coming after the murder of Polonius and the disappearance of Hamlet seem to voice Ophelia's sense of abandonment by the two authoritative and loved figures in her life. They too saw the lyrics as confirming either that she had indeed slept with Hamlet, or that she has fantasized about sleeping with Hamlet and is now in her madness accepting the fantasy for the reality. The feeling of being bereft or abandoned seems to confirm her other feelings of having been used (abused?) sexually, by her father's dismissive "Pooh ... green girl" attitude towards her infatuation with Hamlet, then using her to spy on Hamlet in 3.1, and Hamlet's declaration that he never loved her or gave her anything. Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L9 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Friday, 9 Feb 1996 16:53:48 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0100 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? Coming at the very interesting question of the Hamlet/Ophelia relationship from a production point of view, I think it's very much up to the director and cast to decide what they feel comfortable with. I do not think there is any definitive textual evidence one way or another. I've always thought that the "mad" scene is not mad at all; Ophelia is stone-cold sane and is telling Gertrude in no uncertain terms how she has been used. The fact that Gertrude and the court prefer to react to Ophelia's behavior as if it were madness then only further reinforces the hypocricy and rottenness of the State of Denmark. Shirley Kagan University of Hawaii (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Saturday, 10 Feb 1996 12:41:05 GMT Subject: RE: SHK 7.0100 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sex I fail to understand the need to treat Ophelia as a real person. Whether she is pregnant or not is about as irrelevant as whether Gertrude and Claudius had a clandestine affair before the death of Old Hamlet, or whether Lady Macbeth had any children (and how many). The assumption is that when Ophelia speaks what is a disturbing series of verses, that it is the autonomous consciousness Ophelia who is speaking, and that she is referring to her own private history. I see no reason to believe that she is. John Drakakis (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Saturday, February 10, 1996 Subject: Characters: Real. Fictive, or What? Regarding the issue of character: I, as I am sure many do, teach that treating characters in plays as if they were "real" people is a practice that can be traced back at least to the English and German Romantics and that culminated in the work of Bradley and perhaps Granville-Barker (to whom I will return in a moment). As a person born just after World War II and thus as one who came of age in the mid-sixties, I welcomed wholeheartedly the recent -- that is past thirty years' -- theoretical challenges to formalism, which attacked the historical/ biographical approach that in turn had attacked the character-centered approach of Bradley and his predecessors. I confess to being knocked out by *Alternative Shakespeares,* *Political Shakespeare,* *That Shakespearian Rag,* *Shakespearean Negotiations,* and more recently by the work of Jerome McGann and Randall McLeod -- all works that greatly influence the way I look at and teach Shakespeare. I agree completely with the position that characters are only characters in the fictive medium of drama. I agree that there is nothing outside of the text. I admit that to myself I responded to the did-Hamlet-do-it-with-Ophelia question by thinking of how many children did the Macbeth's have, and this is from one who was taught in graduate school by James McManaway, whose Jephthah's daughter essay argued very early for Ophelia's virginity. But let me be naive for a moment. As much as I would like to think of myself as a shin-kicking, post-structuralist, I still value close reading. I surely know I am opening myself up here to being interrogated from both the left and the right in Shakespeare studies with a statement such as this, yet I do wonder if there still is some value, if not to actors preparing for roles (thus the Granville-Barker reference above), to reading closely for possible clues to character in the text even though such speculation is outside the text. How do the rest of you deal with this issue in your classes and writings? I guess I am especially interested in what John Drakakis and Terry Hawkes have to offer. For example, I'm currently looking at the Q1 *Hamlet,* in which I find a less problematic Gertrude than the one in Q2 and F1. Am I mistaken even to make such an assertion? The Q1 Gertrude has less to say and is seemly less involved and thus less problematic than she -- that is, the Gertrude character -- is in Q2 and F1. In the closet scene, she appears to capitulate to her son and in the following scene appears to cover up for him. Q1's scene 15 -- between Gertrude and Horatio that is not in Q2 and F1 -- further supports these assumptions as do other omissions in Q1 related to Gertrude that do not appear in Q2 and F1. In making such assertions, am I *essentially* counting children? I'm genuinely perplexed and am also preparing my ISA paper. Any thoughts would be appreciated. --Hardy ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 22:11:58 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0102 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0102. Saturday, 10 February 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 09 Feb 1996 08:27:33 -0500 (EST) Subj: Funeral Elegy (2) From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Saturday, 10 Feb 1996 00:41:48 +0100 Subj: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 09 Feb 1996 08:27:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Funeral Elegy Terry Ross is correct when he suggests that *A Funeral Elegy* is stylistically very Shakespearean, and Rick Abrams will be summarizing those stylistic similarities in a forthcoming issue of the TLS. The enjambment is very Shakespearean in quantity and dexterity. And much of the vocabulary and word usage is Shakespearean -- no doubt. Just looking at the first lines, I find verbs like "rase out" (11) and "pattern out" (16) are used by Shakespeare. Of course, he hadn't used "short-lived" (12) since LLL -- if I'm reading the concordance correctly. But the line "Sith as that ever he maintained the same?" (8) troubles me. If this line is Shakespeare's, this is the first time in his undoubted writing that he's used "Sith as that." (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Abbott notes the "as that" construction (para. 108), but quotes Spenser rather than Shakespeare as an example. All in all, line 8 seems lame -- to my ear. Of course, the ascription of the poem to Shakespeare will not rest on one line or, indeed, on a series of separate lines. But there is the bad Hemingway contest in which writers who admire Hemingway, and know his style well attempt to imitate his style. "Sith as that ever he maintained the same?" doesn't sound like a very successful attempt to imitate Shakespeare's style -- even if it was Shakespeare at the pen! Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Saturday, 10 Feb 1996 00:41:48 +0100 Subject: Funeral Elegy If I may, I'd like to contribute my two cents to the discussion on the Funeral Elegy. Unfortunately, many people seem to be getting their information from news reports, which are necessarily sketchy and almost invariably include omissions and distortions. To someone who has only read the New York Times article and similar accounts, Don Foster's confidence may seem excessive, and his latest SHAKSPER post ("our problem is not, 'Why doesn't Richard Kennedy LIKE this poem?' but rather, why didn't Shakespeare write it more in keeping with Richard Kennedy's (and, indeed, my own) sense of aesthetic value?") may seem like hubris. I don't think anybody, least of all Don, is claiming that this is a great poem, and the reaction many people have upon first reading the poem ("*Shakespeare* wrote *this*?!?) is entirely reasonable. Nevertheless, the evidence that Shakespeare did in fact write this poem is surprisingly broad and surprisingly persuasive -- the Elegy closely matches Shakespeare's late work in many, many ways and differs from the work of other contemporary poets in equally many ways; numerous rhetorical and grammatical quirks which are virtually unique to Shakespeare among English poets are found in the Elegy; the author of the Elegy knew Shakespeare's works inside and out and borrowed heavily from them; and so on. I won't go into all this evidence here -- much of it can be found in Don Foster's book, *Elegy by W.S.: A Study in Attribution*, though some of the most compelling evidence, including that of SHAXICON, have come to light since the book was written. In the spirit of debate, I thought I'd give my reaction to some of the criticisms I've seen, and mention some factors that should at least be part of the discussion. * The Elegy, whoever the author may have been, was written quickly. William Peter was murdered on January 25, 1612, and the Elegy was entered in the Stationer's Register by Thomas Thorpe on February 13, just nineteen days later. Even without allowing time for news of the murder to reach the poet and/or for the manuscript to reach London, that's pretty quick for a 579-line poem, especially one as complex as the Funeral Elegy. Terry Ross points out some of the poem's good points, and Don Foster makes a very good case in his book that the Elegy is more complex, both rhetorically and stylistically, than it might appear at first glance. * Most Elizabethan and Jacobean elegies, even those written by accomplished poets, tended to be unmemorable and filled with cliches; in this context, the Funeral Elegy is actually pretty good and unusually complex. I hope Don Foster doesn't mind if I quote from his book: "As an elegaic poet W.S. has few competitors for the laurel. John Donne is perhaps the only contemporary who can boast to have surpassed W.S.'s achievement in an elegaic poem of more than two hundred lines. The verse of W.S. seems almost effortless beside the funereal labors of such noted poets as George Chapman, John Davies, or Thomas Heywood, and beyond comparison with the doggerel of such hacks as George Wither and Joshua Sylvester. With the possible exception of Shakespeare and one or two others, W.S.'s Elegy would add to the reputation of any Jacobean poet able to claim it as his own." I'm not saying this proves anything, but the literary context in which the Elegy was written is at least a relevant factor to be considered in any discussion of its authorship. * Bill Godshalk wonders why, if Shakespeare was the author, his full name didn't appear on the title page as a selling point. But as Don Foster points out, the quarto of the Elegy has all the hallmarks of being privately printed, financed probably by the author and not intended for public sale. The subject was an untitled provincial gentleman of no apparent interest to London bookbuyers (other published elegies were virtually without exception written for knights or earls who were famous and/or whose families were likely patrons); the name of the publisher (Thorpe) does not appear on the title page or elsewhere; neither is there the address of a bookseller, as in virtually all books offered for public sale. * The news stories have tended to emphasize the computer aspect, and have sometimes given the impression that a "computer study" is the basis of Foster's claim for Shakespeare's authorship of the Elegy. This spin is not too surprising given the media's general fascination with computers, especially when they're used in the humanities, but in fact the bulk of the evidence and arguments have nothing to do with computers; unless I'm mistaken, all the counting, word lists, etc. for Don's book were done manually (it was published in 1989 but written a few years earlier). It's true that SHAXICON has supplemented this evidence in important ways, but it's just one part of a complex web of evidence. Several people have reminded us that computers have no emotions and cannot judge beauty. This is true, of course, but nobody is trying to use a computer for that. People's esthetic judgements of a poem are valuable and useful, and always have to be considered in a case like this. Such judgements are obviously subjective, though, and other kinds of evidence, both internal and external, also have to be looked at in any attribution study. In the case of the Funeral Elegy, the other evidence is pretty persuasive, and there are a number of factors -- haste, the general dreariness (even among good poets) of the genre to which the Elegy belongs, plus what Richard Abrams argues is a deliberately anti-imaginative quality to the poem -- which you have to take into account when reading it. Anyone is free to believe or not believe that Shakespeare wrote the Elegy, but I don't think you can just dismiss the case for his authorship as casually as some people have been doing. I hope people will look at all the evidence in all its astonishing detail, and get an idea of the literary context in which the poem was written, before treating the Elegy too harshly. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 10:12:21 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0103 Re: Pericles; CD ROM; Abridged MND Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0103. Monday, 12 February 1996. (1) From: Kristen L. Olson Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 10:49:40 -0500 Subj: Pericles/recent criticism (2) From: Amy Ulen Date: Friday, 09 Feb 1996 20:31:06 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0096 Qs: CD ROM; Abridged MND (3) From: Joanne Walen Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 18:40:38 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0096 Qs: Abridged MND (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kristen L. Olson Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 10:49:40 -0500 Subject: Pericles/recent criticism For Julie Bleha: You asked for any recent books that look closely at the recognition scene in _Pericles_. Newly published by Cambridge UP is _Shakespeare and the Theatre of Wonder_ by (SHAKSPER member) Tom Bishop. I'm not sure whether it will be directly related to your topic as you described it, but this book devotes an entire chapter to _Pericles_, this scene in particular, raising many interesting points that you may want to consider. (Also, when I said "newly" I really meant it...it may not be available yet in the US, though I believe it has been released already in the UK.) Feel free to email me directly if you'd like more specifics. -Kristen (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy Ulen Date: Friday, 09 Feb 1996 20:31:06 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0096 Qs: CD ROM; Abridged MND > "Would it not be great if we can buy a CD with the play on, > you can stop it, click on for an explanation. ( for block-heads who need > one..). Well.. that would be the ticket!" The BookWorm Student Library carries Shakespeare on CD. They have Hamlet, Macbeth, R&J, and Midsummer. Call 1-800-845-1755 for more information. > Subject: Wanted: Abridged Midummer Night's Dream > My wife requires a shorter version for use with secondary school students. My students are creating a study guide for Midsummer on the Web. They have included an html version of the text that we cut for performance. Although the study guide is FAR from being finished, your wife may find some useful information. http://www.moscow.com/Education/masc/ (follow the "From Stage to Screen" link) Amy Ulen, Lead Teacher Moscow Alternative School Center masc@moscow.com (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 18:40:38 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0096 Qs: Abridged MND For an Abridged MSND, she might try Shakespeare on Stage or, for younger students, Shakespeare for Young People; these last are 40 minute versions. All are adapted by Diane Davidson. The language is not changed, only cut. These are available easily from the Writing Company Shakespeare Catalogue, 1-800-421-4246. Better yet, why not divide up the play into chunks that she gives to groups of students and have them cut their own version? Lots of close reading of the text will occur as students argue for what to keep and what to leave out. They will also be approximating the role of a director who is making cuts in a production. The next step, of course, is to perform their version--then compare it to what others have done (on video). I suppose it all comes down to how much involvement you want the kids to have in the play--or how much time. Good luck. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 10:30:18 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0104 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters (Part I) Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0104. Monday, 12 February 1996. (1) From: Steve Sohmer Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 04:52:30 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (2) From: Michael Yogev Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 12:17:53 +0200 (WET) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (3) From: Florence Amit Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 12:52:37 +0200 Subj: Ophelia's innocence (4) From: Charles Costello Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 11:56:36 -0500 (EST) Subj: Characters--real, fictive or what (5) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 12:01:28 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (6) From: Harry Hill Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 13:06:01 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (7) From: Michael Saenger Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 13:45:53 -0500 (EST) Subj: Real and Fictive (8) From: Janis Lull Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 11:19:29 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 04:52:30 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? >I fail to understand the need to treat Ophelia as a real person. Whether she >is pregnant or not is about as irrelevant as whether Gertrude and Claudius >had a clandestine affair before the death of Old Hamlet,or whether Lady Macbeth >had any children (and how many). I want to say, with respect to this writer and others who share this view, that no one who fails to ponder the sexual dimension of the Hamlet/Ophelia relationship, or the history of Lady Macbeth's children, can hope to understand these plays. One might as well say, "There's no need to speculate why Horatio recognizes the armor Old Hamlet had on the day he overcame Old Fortinbras." Or, "There's no need to speculate whether Brutus is Julius Caesar's bastard." Or, "There's a sunset at Philippi at 3 o'clock because Shakespeare forgot." Or, "Shakespeare didn't know that King James the VI could trace his heritage not only along the male line to Banquo, but along the female line to the murdered Duncan." We know from the text of Hamlet that Gertrude and Claudius have a clandestine affair before the death of Old Hamlet. The Ghost declares their coupling not only "incestuous" but "adulterous." While it was possible to commit incest with a brother's wife after his death (H8 did--ask Cranmer), it was not possible to commit adultery with her after his death. Gertrude and Old Hamlet also had sexual relations prior to their marriage, but that takes too long to tell. All the best, Steve Sohmer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 12:17:53 +0200 (WET) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? To Hardy Cook I would just like to add my own ambivalence on the way one reads as opposed to the way one might actually see an Ophelia. John Drakakis voiced a proper textual sense of the absurdity of asking some of the questions that are being bounced about on this topic, for it really is rather ridiculous to speculate about Ophelia's pregnancy or where they might have achieved another sort of 'consummation devoutly to be wished.' On the other hand, we do tend to imagine the character of the pages as a figure on the stage, and here I think the questions being asked can be performed in subtler ways than the questioners suggest. Certainly we need not agree with Polonius's characterization of his daughter as "a green girl" (1.3.101), for after all, he is hardly the best judge of anyone's character and his wise saws are ironically undercut by the action of the play itself. On the other hand, Ophelia herself has just called out Laertes, in what I see as a potentially wry and ironicly "modest" fashion, on the issue of the double standard of sexual conduct for troubling to show her "the steep and thorny way to heaven" while himself possibly treading "the primrose path of dalliance" (1.3.48,50). So my sense is that the novelistic questions being asked are unanswerable and essentially pointless, whereas the performative options the text itself offers might lead us to such questions as reviewers. The play's the thing, after all. Michael Yogev University of Haifa (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Florence Amit Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 12:52:37 +0200 Subject: Ophelia's innocence If there are others that have developed the theme of a Messianic (including Luthern) Hamlet as I have for many years now, they will agree that the idea of sexual looseness is not allowable in consideration of the hero's agony of concuspiscence, which is today modernized by irreligiously calling it an Oedipus complex. Oedpius Complex or concuspiscence the strain of revulsion is profound and no pre-martial sex is consistent with it. Hamlet is a religious young man whose (opening) undersanding of his personal 'election' incapacitates him from performing a deed of national and devine justice because it means that he must take a life. Then would he, with many doctrins waging war in his poor head, perform a much more simply dealt with sinful act? Also from Ophelia's stand point it is impossible. Polonius has treated her like an imbecile incapable of discretion and Ophelia is obedient, as we know, not to his point of view, but to his parental authority. Then Hamlet, who in every other way despises Polonius apes him in regard to Ophelia's virtue, so that the poor girl, under extreme shock and duress, alone and in madness, echoes these male fantasies in song. Indeed a case can be made for her being spiritually possessed by Hamlet, who has cursed her. He completes the bewitching process with a "mitching mallecho incantation" (that recalls the name given to certain Genevan Protestants, the Mamelouks). The very clothing that he has laid his head upon in this his pyrrhonistic state, drag her down under water to her death. It is the customary way by which a witch is tested. Also if to be wed is to be deflowered, Hamlet testifies to her virginity by sending her to wed with a fool, Yorick, in a nunnery where none live "be thou as chaste as ice , as pure as snow, thou shalt not escape calumny". (Nor does she, by our fellow shaksperians here). Later, during the mouse trap scene, Ophelia refuses to have Hamlet "lie in [her] lap" where-upon he says "That's a fair thought to lie between MAID's legs." A detail, but one that would not have been said had they been lovers. The innocence of Ophelia is necessary from the point of view of a Luthern transfiguration and allegory. Ophelia, considered here to be an obedient laity with the voice of Erasmus will eventually see the death of an outworn scholasticism by Luther to that laity's confusion and transformation. Florence Amit (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Costello Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 11:56:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: Characters--real, fictive or what I can conceive of a drama about chairs, with no human beings represented at all. I can also conceive of applying psychological theory to such a play. Charles Costello, University of Toronto (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 12:01:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? John Drakakis writes: >The assumption is that when Ophelia speaks what is a disturbing series of >verses, that it is the autonomous consciousness Ophelia who is speaking, and >that she is referring to her own private history. I see no reason to believe >that she is. I hope none of us believes that Ophelia is an "autonomous consciousness." But the actor who plays the role of Ophelia represents "Ophelia" AS IF (good 16th and 17th century stage direction) -- I say, AS IF she were an autonomous consciousness. Yours, Bill Godshalk (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 13:06:01 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? If I may confuse this relatively fruitless enquiry further. . . there are many kinds of actors, but I suppose they could be said to divide mainly into the two categories of those of create their performances by "research" into the histories and extratextual lives of their roles and those who "stick to the text". It might equally well be said that these are, broadly, the two main types of readers and critics. Without drawing the obvious conclusions from the analogy, I can say that as an actor I find *combinations* of the two extremes stimulating and effective. [Those two words need their *verbal* forms in the reading of them to taste my preferred acting method, by the way.] When I played Claudius, for example, I used no "subtext" at all and therefore disappointed those spectators who had created in their imaginations a villain rather than the polished and pleasant exterior that the man's villainy so cleverly and subtly creates; however, I pleased another kinf of spectator. During rehearsals I laboriously avoided any hints in my heart that I had done the murder, however much the Strasberg- trained director enrouaged me to "dig into my depths". I did this because I was playing a man who is a brilliant liar whose career in the span of the drama is the presentation of lies. John Drakakis' point is easily missed by those whose concept of art is so influenced by the mirror-image syndrome that they are unable to accept that these plays deal with human-ness rather than humans. There are still folks, we might remind ourselves, who send money, food and advice to the characters in soap operas. Listen, Hamlet and Ophelia did not fiddle around before the play, nor between the scenes and Acts. How could they possibly have???? They are FICTIONS!!!!! Harry Hill Montreal (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 13:45:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Real and Fictive Hardy raises an interesting point regarding acting choices and the reality of characters. This is certainly a point which makes a chasm between academics and actors/non-academics. Academics, formalist or not, generally want to hear nothing about Shakespeare the man, much less about Ophelia the woman. One point is certainly in their favor; actors in Shakespeare's time, and for some 200 years afterward, worked on a much faster pace than those today. There was really only time to memorize lines, practice swordfights, and perform. Any "secrets" or "true selves" could only be implied in passing. The tricky thing is that Shakespeare does imply things. Especially in Hamlet he gestures toward, and perhaps even creates, the modern sense of character. Ophelia does imply that she has had sexual intercourse with Hamlet. Hamlet's vicious wit on "country matters" certainly makes us suspect he knows what he is talking about, and a nunnery is a logical place for a unmarried non-virgin to go. This is a shadow cast by the play, a shadow that was originally intended to pass fleetingly as the tragedy picks up force. It is some indication of the power of this play that even its shadows seem to take on life and spur debates which are, however understandable, futile. Michael Saenger (8)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Janis Lull Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 11:19:29 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? In reply to Hardy Cook's question about whether it's okay to find differences in character between, for example, Q1 Gertrude and Q2 Gertrude, of course it's okay. It is true that in any version of *Hamlet*, Gertrude is not a real person. After Samuel Johnson, I can hardly believe anyone is still arguing about that. "Imitations produce pain or pleasure," wrote Johnson, "not because they are mistaken for realities, but because they bring realities to mind . . .We are agitated in reading the history of *Henry* the Fifth, yet no man takes his book for the field of Agencourt" (*Preface to Shakespeare*). In our "shin-kicking post-structuralist" times (is it shins we're kicking?), we seem to be developing an odd neo-neoclassical prohibition against speaking of literature as if it were in any way about character, or, in some cases, about anything at all. The analysis of character as we understand it and want to understand it in daily life is one of the functions of literature. John Searle has said about the phenomenon of consciousness that it will not do just to say, "there's no such thing, so we don't have to talk about it." We know there's such a thing as consciousness, and our knowledge is part of the data that any theory of mind must explain. The same might be said of character. We know there are such things as persons and personalities, and we used to think literature might help explain that knowledge. Nobody should be forced to seek their explanations of human character in literature--not even high-school students. But nobody should be prevented, either. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 10:47:22 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0105 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters (Part II) Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0105. Monday, 12 February 1996. (1) From: John Lee Date: Saturday, 10 Feb 1996 19:50:43 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (2) From: Martin J Wood Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 09:00:35 -0600 Subj: Hamlet, Ophelia, Sex (3) From: Simon Malloch Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 22:11:21 +0800 (WST) Subj: Re: Characters: Real, Fictive, or What? (4) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 15:12:51 GMT Subj: Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (5) From: Andrew Murphy Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 09:52:57 +0000 (GMT) Subj: SHK 7.0101: 'persons' in texts (6) From: Peter Liggett Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 00:26:20 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (7) From: C. David Frankel Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 18:27:40 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Characters: Fictive or Real? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Lee Date: Saturday, 10 Feb 1996 19:50:43 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? > I fail to understand the need to treat Ophelia as a real person. Whether she > is pregnant or not is about as irrelevant as whether Gertrude and Claudius had > a clandestine affair before the death of Old Hamlet, or whether Lady Macbeth > had any children (and how many). > > The assumption is that when Ophelia speaks what is a disturbing series of > verses, that it is the autonomous consciousness Ophelia who is speaking, and > that she is referring to her own private history. I see no reason to believe > that she is. Like John Drakakis I find the matter of whether or not Ophelia is pregnant rather irrelevant (though it obviously wouldn't be irrelevant in a production). However, I don't find whether or not Gertrude and Claudius had a clandestine affair before the death of Old Hamlet at all irrelevant. This is not because I think these two are real persons, but because dramatic persons ask to be treated as real persons. Let's take a few examples. John Drakakis seems to be saying that dramatic persons cannot refer to their own private histories; presumably the play is in the moment of the present production. Yet Shakespearean persons work very hard to create their own private histories (which sometimes include futures) -- often with details that have no 'relevance' to the situation at hand. What does it matter that Yorick used to give Hamlet piggy-backs? It matters because it insists that the audience regard the dramatic person Hamlet as possessed of a past which predates the played action and that is acting on him at every moment. It matters because it asks that Hamlet's actions and utterances be interpreted as a real person's. The play insists on referring outside of itself. To follow this example on; Hamlet, possessed of a past and a future, cares about whether or not Claudius and Gertrude had an affair before his father's death. He seems to accuse his mother of this: 'A bloody deed! almost as bad, good mother, / As kill a king, and marry with his brother.' Whether or not Hamlet believes Claudius and Gertrude had an affair is a significant issue, because it has relevance for our interpretation of his behaviour and words, and is meant to have relevance. And if he is uncertain on this question (after all, the Mousetrap has a Queen that seems to be attracted to her husband's brother after the murder; or should her protests be read as hypocrisy?) that is also relevant. For meaning is in part the product of intention, and a postulated intention is necessary to recover meaning -- but that pushes the discussion into the realms of why a code model of language is insufficient. So I'd argue that Shakespeare's dramatic persons insist on being treated as real persons. But I'd rather not use those terms. For my real disagreement with John Drakakis point of view on this matter is in the use of 'real persons' as a divide; we, it seems, are real -- as our possession of autonomous consciousnesses demonstrates, whereas Ophelia is not as she does not possess such an autonomous consciousness. But are we so different in this respect? In fact, I doubt that John Drakakis would claim to have an autonomous consciousness -- no person is wholly their own construction, an issue this list discussed a little while ago. I imagine both John Drakakis and I would dislike any sense of a fixed unitary essence. I'm not sure that he would be willing to call subjectivity a construction as oppossed to a production (the former allowing that there may be areas of self-constituted interiority), but that is what I'd argue for. Part of that construction is literature; to quote Hazlitt -- 'We are not (the meanest of us) a volume, but a whole library.' (And _Hamlet_ is a particularly important volume in that library.) Or Wilde: 'Art has made us myriad minded'. I'm using those quotation to stand for argument; the conclusion to which I aim is that there are areas of our personality that are literally literary. So, to me, the sentence 'I fail to understand the need to treat Ophelia as a real person' is creating a divide between text and context that is, in this matter, too distinct. In the realm of interpretation, surely Ophelia and Drakakis are to be treated as the same? Take for example a politician. How does our interpretation of his words difffer from our interpretation of Claudius's? How is our sense of the politician's subjectivity different from our sense of Claudius's? Both are scripted, both are on stage. Are the same interpretative strategies at work? I think so, and I'd argue that they are similarly at work in all social interaction -- which is to say no more than that aspects of life and subjectivity are theatrical, and that the theatre deals with (and creates) these aspects particularly effectively. Hence the force and argument of the commonplaces along the lines of 'all the worlds a stage'. This is not to say that the theatre is no different from life, or that Drakakis no different from Ophelia. This would be silly! But I'm not sure that that difference can be found to lie in one subjectivity's greater grounding in the 'real' or 'consciousness' than the other. Cicero, when he considered a similar question, asked what was the difference between players and orators, and answered that orators were the players who acted life. John Lee (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin J Wood Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 09:00:35 -0600 Subject: Hamlet, Ophelia, Sex Just like human beings, we want to have it all. We would like Shakespeare's play to be a text AND a dramatic production. And should we be able to force ourselves to make that choice--say, by looking at *Hamlet* only as text--then we want to understand the actions from a critical perspective that privileges mimesis AND to understand the themes from a perspective that privileges coherence. The final answer, of course, is It Depends. My personal choice (when I am able to make one) is to side with Shirley Kagan and view it as theater: anything not explicitly forbidden in the text is fair game for the company. But most of the time I want to have it all. Marty Wood UW - Eau Claire (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Malloch Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 22:11:21 +0800 (WST) Subject: Re: Characters: Real, Fictive, or What? On Sat, 10 Feb 1996, Hardy M. Cook wrote: > Regarding the issue of character: > > I, as I am sure many do, teach that treating characters in plays as if they > were "real" people is a practice that can be traced back at least to the > English and German Romantics and that culminated in the work of Bradley and > perhaps Granville-Barker (to whom I will return in a moment). This is exactly how the Professor I had for Shakespeare viewed characters in the play. This was not entirely explicit in his lectures or tutorials, but I had just written an essay which viewed Hamlet as if he were "real" (the essay was concerned with whether or not the prince was truly mad. George Wilson Knight was a great help here, some of the best "interpretation", to use his word, that I have read). I was duly cautioned about treating characters in such a way, the technique being a little "out-dated". I stand by my belief in treating characters as real for the following reason: when reading the play (or a novel for that matter) I visualise in my mind (as Shakespeare must have done) the characters, the action, the settings etc. This way, understandably, everything appears "real" and believable. I do not mean that I believe Hamlet existed in the real world, but when I think of the prince, I think of a real person, not just a word on the page, or a mask on an actor. I don't think there is any other way of conceiving of Hamlet, if you really want to achieve an effective understanding of the play's themes, character psychology, and problems (etc.), than thinking of him as a real person, surrounded by real people, in a real castle. Its the only way I can visualise the play, and it makes the whole exercise, in my opinion, much more fruitful. Furthermore, I am also of the opinion that examining the historical and biographical context is extremly rewarding, Obviously, in relation to biography, it is hard to do this with Shakespeare, though it is obvious that he or his work was not immune to the historical context. Other writers, as we know, are not exempt from biographical enquiry though. One only has to look at other artistic endeavours, such as art and classical music, to realise that you cannot divorce the work from its creator. I personally believe that a work comes firstly from the authors mind, which may be influenced by his context. If we divorce the author from the text, why is it that some texts are more popular or canonical than others? Surely it must be as a result of the man behind the pen, or the quill as the case may be. But I stray... Simon Malloch Student at the University of Western Australia (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 15:12:51 GMT Subject: Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? The theory shared by a number of MY colleagues is that Hamlet and Ophelia had textual relations. T. Hawkes (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Murphy Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 09:52:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: SHK 7.0101: 'persons' in texts I wholeheartedly agree with John Drakakis's response to the recent Ophelia/Hamlet debate, which has had an air of bizarre unreality to it and seems to have transported us all back to the days when A.C Bradley could ask 'Did Lady Macbeth really faint?' I understand Hardy Cook's concerns, but surely Randy McLeod (in, among other places, his disection of unitary identity in 'What's the Bastard's Name?'), Annabel Patterson (in reading between Q1 and F1 _Henry V_ in _Shakespeare and the Popular Voice_) and Leah Marcus (in _Puzzling Shakespeare_ and her recent work on the texts of _Hamlet_) have demonstrated how it is possible to read between early textualisations without reducing everything to the kind of character criticism that Poststructuralists, Feminists, New Historicists, Cultural Materialists and Queer Theorists have sought so much to challenge and to move beyond. Andrew Murphy (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Liggett Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 00:26:20 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? >The assumption is that when Ophelia speaks what is a disturbing series of >verses, that it is the autonomous consciousness Ophelia who is speaking, and >that she is referring to her own private history. I see no reason to believe >that she is. > >John Drakakis If you don't assume her reality, what do you assume? You have to pretend to believe in her existence in order to enter into the play, don't you. Peter (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 18:27:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Characters: Fictive or Real? I mainly teach undergraduates, some theatre majors, some not. What I suggest to them is that when we experience plays, novels, movies, tv show, etc., that we examine them from two perspectives. On the one hand, we explore the fictive world in which we pretend that the characters behave as human beings. Within the fictive world the questions regardings characters cognitions, feelings, and volitions are both important and pertinant. On the other hand, we also explore the dramaturgical world, looking to what uses the characters (and the scenes and other aspects of the play) are put. At the simplest level, if we see a character as hero or villain, we responsd to their dramaturgical role. Although this twin perspective leaves out much, I find that it provides several ways to connect specific works (and dramatic and narrative forms in general) to the experience the students have when they encounter these works. It also provides them with some tools to expand their responses to works in the future. C. David Frankel frankel@arts.usf.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 10:53:24 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0106 Qs: Old Athenian Law; Bastards; ISA Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0106. Monday, 12 February 1996. (1) From: Kathleen Brookfield Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 96 01:49:00 -0500 Subj: The Old Athenian Law (2) From: David Reinheimer Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 11:46:48 -0800 (PST) Subj: Natural Born Characters (3) From: Joanne Walen Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 18:41:11 -0500 Subj: International Conference (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Brookfield Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 96 01:49:00 -0500 Subject: The Old Athenian Law In Midsummer Night's Dream (I:i:42), Egeus begs the "ancient privilege of Athens" to control who his daughter marries. Later, in the same scene, Theseus seems to be quoting that "Law" giving the father sole authority over the daughter. Is this Shakespeare's invention or was there such a law? If so, where might I find it? My interest is in the "missing mothers" in Shakespeare's plays that focus on father-daughter relationships. I am curious about the reference " ....you are but as a form in wax By him imprinted, and within his power To leave the figure, or disfigure it." (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Reinheimer Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 11:46:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Natural Born Characters A friend has asked me whether there are bastard characters in Renaissance plays not by Shakespeare. I would appreciate your help in checking and adding to what I have found. Thanks. Have a good day! Dave Reinheimer UCDavis dareinheimer@ucdavis.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 18:41:11 -0500 Subject: International Conference How and where can I get information and applications for the International Shakespeare Conference in Los Angeles in April? I wrote to The Shakespeare Association of America at Southern Methodist University on advice of a friend but received no reply. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Joanne Walen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 11:00:28 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0107 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0107. Monday, 12 February 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 11:47:12 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0102 Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: Harry Hill Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 13:06:55 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Funeral Elegy (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 20:59:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0102 Re: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 11:47:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0102 Re: Funeral Elegy >>* Bill Godshalk wonders why, if Shakespeare was the author, his full name >>didn't appear on the title page as a selling point. But as Don Foster points >>out, the quarto of the Elegy has all the hallmarks of being privately printed, >>financed probably by the author and not intended for public sale. The subject >>was an untitled provincial gentleman of no apparent interest to London >>bookbuyers (other published elegies were virtually without exception written >>for knights or earls who were famous and/or whose families were likely >>patrons); the name of the publisher (Thorpe) does not appear on the title page >>or elsewhere; neither is there the address of a bookseller, as in virtually >>all books offered for public sale. Yes, Don Foster makes some of these points on page 17 his *Elegy by W.S.* But I'm not contented. If these were a "rather small, private printing," why involve a bookseller such as Thomas Thorp? Why have Thorp enter the poem in the Stationers Register? Why not go directly to Eld? If the press run is limited in quantity, paid for by the author, and not intended for public sale, why go to a publisher? I will not be contented by a vague procedural answer; e.g., "Shakespeare always or almost always used Thorp as his publisher." See Foster 72-74, 229-232. If the press run were extremely limited ("an elegy for a provincial gentleman {was} of no obvious interest to London bookmen" {Foster 73}), why go to a press at all? Many presentation copies were done by scribes like Ralph Crane. We believe that Middleton personalized presentation copies of his plays by using a scribe who could make changes in the manuscript geared to the individual recipient. Although it is difficult to calculate, below a certain press run, printing would not be cost efficient. If the *Elegy* were not meant for publication, why have it printed? The classy way to go would be manuscrupt. (Harold Love discusses the scribal culture of this period at some length. Manuscript was still a legitimate method of reproduction in this period.) And, yes, Thorp's name and address do not appear on the title page. This is unusual. If any name is missing, it's usually the printer's. I have not yet checked Eld's list to see if he ever does this with another book -- put his own name on the title page and withhold the (possible) publisher's. Since Eld apparently did do some publishing himself, the absence of Thorp's name may imply that Eld was in fact assuming the role of publisher. I realize that the questions I ask do not call into question the possible Shakespearean provenance of the poem. But I am puzzled by the poem's printing and publishing history -- or lack of it. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 13:06:55 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Funeral Elegy I promised Professor Foster a tape of this long poem over three weeks ago preparatory to committing it to CD as part of Concordia's recording series, but ran into many problems with it. What some praise as enjambement turns out in practice --and such poems were read aloud as we know or presume-- to be thumping, thunking, clunking carpentry that is all but unreadable. The main difficulty, however, is a prepnderant absence of physical imagery. This absence creates a sort of Wordsworthian abstraction where the introduction of actual objetcs renders the thought and the emotion prosaic. This may well have been Shakespeare's method in the poem as it was Wordsworth's in his mystical moods. If so, it works better in Wordsworth, who can take us by surprise with the sudden literalness of an image after a series of abstractions, as in the intimate physicality of Felt in the blood, and felt along the heart. There is nothing in all the Elegy that approaches successfully the personal emotional geography of that "along the heart". But in prasing Wordsworth I find I have disprased Shakespeare, and still try To find in reading what in seeing I cannot find And thus by oral noise we may improve This product of the man we mostly love. Harry Hill (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 11 Feb 1996 20:59:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0102 Re: Funeral Elegy I've now had a chance to look at my notes on George Eld. Eld printed STC 21531, *The puritaine or The vviddovv of VVatling-streete. . . . Written by W.S. Imprinted at London, By G. Eld, 1607.* I think this title page should give us pause. The title page of *A funeral elegye* reads "By W.S. Imprinted at London, By G. Eld, 1612." (Foster 266-67 discusses *The Puritaine*, but does not seem to discuss the similarity in title pages.) For title pages that are in some ways similar to that of *A funeral elegye*, see, e.g., STC 21028 (*The art of iugling*), STC 916 (*St. Augustine, Of the citie of God*), STC 6539 (*North-vvard hoe*), STC 1014 (*A historie*), STC 19823 (*A petite palace*), STC 18422 (*Speculum Christianum*); on these title pages Eld gives, after the information about title and author, only place (London), printer (himself) and the date. No publishers or addresses are given. So the title page of *A funeral elegye* is not unusual in this respect. I surmize that Eld's printing of *A funeral elegye* was not a prestige job. The title page contains neither of Eld's signature ornaments. The text is prefaced with one ornament and has one decorative capital. I'd compare the job Eld did on STC 13529 (*Histrio-Mastix*) in 1610, As a contrast, look at the title page of STC 22277 (*Hamlet*) printed by Eld in 1611. More of a contrast is provided by Eld's printing of STC 18368 (Nashe's *Christs Teares*), a job done for Thomas Thorp -- with no Eld byline. The printing, however, is unmistakable Eld's. (Even printer's have individual "style.") I point these things out to call into question certain deductions that have been based (at least partially) on the title page of FE. An analysis of the title page would not support, or lead me to believe, that this is "a rather small, private printing" (Foster 17, echoed by Abrams), or that Shakespeare paid for the printing out of his own pocket. The title page is not an unusual product of Eld's printing house. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:40:39 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0108 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0108. Tuesday, 13 February 1996. (1) From: Richard W Bovard Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 10:20:10 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (2) From: Joseph M Green Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 11:15:38 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (3) From: Heather Stephenson Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 17:10:50 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Real, Fictive or What? (4) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 12:52:25 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0104 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters (Part I) (5) From: Joseph Nathan Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 22:10:25 -0500 Subj: Hamlet-Ophelia (6) From: Richard Regan Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 23:45:52 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0105 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters (Part II) (7) From: Susan Mather Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 01:17:20 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0105 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters (Part II) (8) From: Surajit A. Bose Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 08:47:43 -0500 Subj: Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters (9) From: Surajit A. Bose Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 09:08:05 -0500 Subj: Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard W Bovard Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 10:20:10 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? We seem to have three levels of response here. At one level, in the classroom, the question seems important. Undergraduate students who are just learning to read, interpret, and criticize "Hamlet" frequently ask this question. Fine distinctions between "character" and "person" may not stimulate such students. At a second level, the level of theatre practice, the question seems to be asked often. Indeed, judging from some of the lighter responses, actors and actresses do not seem to make such a fine distinction between what "characters" do in fictive time and what "persons" do in real time. It is at the third level, the level of critical discourse, that such fine distinctions matter. But how much they matter varies from time to time and from place to place. Perhaps the discourse itself is the thing? Or is the discourse merely "character"? Perhaps the play is the thing. Thanks again. Now, it's back to meetings, regular mail, next year's budget, and next year's cuts. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 11:15:38 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? A better question to ask instead of "what was it in Bradley and the Romantics and very many other persons that made them imagine an autonomous consciousness for some of Shakespeare's characters?" might be "how does Shakespeare create this marvelous effect?" (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Heather Stephenson Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 17:10:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Real, Fictive or What? Replying to the Hamlet/Ophelia can-we-treat-these-characters-as-real debate, Michael Saenger writes: "This is certainly a point which makes a chasm between academics and actors/non-academics." Well, as one who might be "read" as straddling the worlds of the academy and the non-academy (which is interestly aligned with the stage here), I don't buy such an easy separation. I don't believe that there is a universal actor engaging in one type of reading, and I am quite certain that no such harmony in point of view exists amongst those in the academic community. Whatever the point of view -- whether a certain reader/actor/audience member approaches the text with "Shakespeare the man" in mind or chooses to ignore a notion of an author (which I would argue is an impossibility for a Western reader of Shakespeare), these varied readings are _choices_. We need to recognize that finding allusions to Ophelia's sexuality, and choosing to translate those allusions into some type of fictive "reality" (whether on stage or in a personal understanding of the text) is one in many possible choices... just as completely ignoring Renaissance playstyles is a choice. What most interests me about Saenger's discussion of Renaissance acting is his emphasis on the play's "shadows" (a wonderful phrase), and their linkage to authorial intent. He writes: "This [the allusions to Ophelia's loss of virginity] is a shadow cast by the play, a shadow that was originally intended to pass fleetingly as the tragedy picks up force." I am fascinated by that "original intention." How many layers of choices -- how many intepretations of many different kinds of texts -- played into this reading of original intention? If what we read in Hamlet is a choice, then what can we make of the choices which enter into any discussion (however well researched) of authorial or theatrical or original intention for plays performed over 400 years ago? And perhaps more importantly, why do those theatrical choices matter? (Just opening a discussion -- not meant to be combative). Cheers, Heather Stephenson Georgetown University (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 12:52:25 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0104 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters (Part I) Florence Amit has written: >Hamlet testifies to her virginity by sending her to wed with >a fool, Yorick, in a nunnery where none live "be thou as chaste as ice , as >pure as snow, thou shalt not escape calumny". (Nor does she, by our fellow >shaksperians here). Later, during the mouse trap scene, Ophelia refuses >to have Hamlet "lie in [her] lap" where-upon he says "That's a fair thought to >lie between MAID's legs." A detail, but one that would not have been said >had they been lovers. The innocence of Ophelia is necessary from the point of >view of a Luthern transfiguration and allegory. Some thoughts: If I'm not mistaken, a nunnery has the double meaning of brothel, certainly a place where Ophelia might go having lost her virginity and being unwed. Also, Hamlet refers to "nothing" being a fair thought to lie between a maid's legs. Again, a pun, since "nothing" may refer to the female genetalia, thus making the little conversation between Hamlet and Ophelia one that could only be shared by lovers. Finally, although the innocence of Ophelia may be necessary from a Lutheran point of view, Shakespeare was not writing Hamlet for a Lutheran audience. Shirley Kagan (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Nathan Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 22:10:25 -0500 Subject: Hamlet-Ophelia Did Hamlet have sex with Ophelia? This has always been an intriguing subject. In one of the biographies on Errol Flynn, the author quotes a conversation between Flynn and John Barrymore. "Tell me, John, I've always wanted to know" Flynn asked, "did Hamlet have an affair with Ophelia?" And Barrymore replied --- "Only in Cleveland". Perhaps this anecdote sheds no new light on the subject, but it might serve to lighten your class discussion. (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Regan Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 23:45:52 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0105 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters (Part II) On the topic of the textual adultery of Gertrude and Claudius, I think it does matter how one reads "adulterate" because the meaning informs the mind of the Ghost, who then infects Hamlet with the misogyny and sexual nausea which he in turn projects onto Ophelia. The OED gives the meaning "spurious or counterfeit" from the 1590's, besides the reference to adultery. The real story is perhaps the Ghost's: Does he accuse Gertrude falsely of adultery? Is he fixated on her sexual behavior after his death? How much does it matter to Hamlet whether Gertrude betrayed his father before the murder, which I think she is ignorant of. (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 01:17:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0105 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters (Part II) I can't take it anymore!!!! I can't stand that line from Mr. D. that Ophelia is not considered by him to be a "real person." Where is that noble woman that has such a way with words? She wrote so eloquently on cross-dressing and the Elizabethan stage, afterall. (8)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Surajit A. Bose Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 08:47:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters With regard to the hoary question about the extent of carnal knowledge shared by Hamlet and Ophelia, a question SHAKSPERians have been pursuing with voyeuristic interest of late, Hardy Cook writes: >But let me be naive for a moment. As much as I would like to think of myself >as a shin-kicking, post-structuralist, I still value close reading. I surely >know I am opening myself up here to being interrogated from both the left and >the right in Shakespeare studies with a statement such as this, yet I do wonder >if there still is some value, if not to actors preparing for roles (thus the >Granville-Barker reference above), to reading closely for possible clues to >character in the text even though such speculation is outside the text. Now the last thing I want to do is kick Professor Cook or anybody else in the shin (for one thing, they'd probably kick right back, and that would hurt). But purely for the sake of furthering academic discussion, I do want to point out that to oppose poststructuralism to close reading is to set up a false dichotomy. Look at "Of Grammatology"--about half the book is a painstaking, one might even say nit-picking, close reading of an essay by Rousseau. However, Professor Cook is right in asserting that poststructuralist approaches call into question the notion of "character," at least insofar as "character" is taken to mean an autonomous consciousness with a private history (I'm borrowing from John Drakakis's bracing contribution here. Shin-braces, perhaps?). What they do emphasize instead is "subjectivity." The difference is that "character" begs the questions "subjectivity" foregrounds: i.e., what are the determinants of individual consciousness? How do our ideas of privacy, identity, and autonomous selfhood come into being? Perhaps the notion of individual character wasn't something sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Englishmen and women took for granted. Or even if they did believe that every individual had a distinct character, perhaps what counted as character or as indications of character were different then. These questions can't be answered except by close readings of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century texts. But that means our interest in reading "Hamlet" is not to figure out what the play reveals about Hamlet's character, or Ophelia's, or Gertrude's; rather, it's to figure out the strategies by which the play PRODUCES those characters. This directs our attention to larger historical and social issues about sixteenth-century understandings of the self; to related texts such as Burton's "Anatomy of Melancholy"; to the conditions of stage performance (e.g., cross-dressing, another hot topic with us SHAKSPERians these days); and above all to the words on the pages of "Hamlet." But sometimes even the words and pages aren't stable. Which brings us to the last of the topics raised by Professor Cook, textual scholarship: how does one know what the words on the page are? In Professor Cook's words: >For example, I'm currently looking at the Q1 *Hamlet,* in which I find a less >problematic Gertrude than the one in Q2 and F1. Am I mistaken even to make such >an assertion? The Q1 Gertrude has less to say and is seemly less involved and >thus less problematic than she -- that is, the Gertrude character -- is in Q2 >and F1. In the closet scene, she appears to capitulate to her son and in the >following scene appears to cover up for him. Q1's scene 15 -- between Gertrude >and Horatio that is not in Q2 and F1 -- further supports these assumptions as >do other omissions in Q1 related to Gertrude that do not appear in Q2 and F1. >In making such assertions, am I *essentially* counting children? Professor Cook is absolutely right in pointing out that interpretation cannot be divorced from textual scholarship. We can't assume by default that the complicated textual history has nothing to do with the way in which Gertrude comes across. But I would shift his emphasis slightly. Rather than asking "How is the character of Gertrude in Q1 different from that in Q2/F1?," I would ask, "What produced these different versions of the text?" It seems to me to be a logically prior question. That question directs us to more history--of print and publishing, of watermarks, performance records, etc. Stephanie Jed's "Chaste Thinking" (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1989) invites us to shed our philological readings for paleographic ones. Her definitions of those terms are different from the usual, and my summary of her extremely engaging and subtle argument is going to be very reductive, I'm afraid. But she says that we shouldn't assume that our way of gaining knowledge about texts is universal and transhistorically correct. We must ask about the material conditions under which knowledge gets produced and transmitted; then alone can we be sure that what we are producing is in fact knowledge. But I see I've laid myself open to the usual charges against poststructuralist work. I've used long, ugly sentences choked with jargon ("transhistorical," egad! "material conditions," forsooth!). I've trafficked in irrelevances and obscured the obvious (what does the Stationers' Register have to do with the kind of person Gertrude is?). I've ignored the problems of teaching (theory is all very well for graduate students, but it doesn't work in the undergrad or high school classroom!) And above all, I've sidestepped the main issue through argumentative sophistry: I've not produced a reading of the text, i.e., I've not put forward my own carefully considered opinion about whether or not Ham and Ophie did the nasty. Well, all I know about that is--I know nothing. Guilty as charged. (9)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Surajit A. Bose Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 09:08:05 -0500 Subject: Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters Terence Hawkes writes: >The theory shared by a number of MY colleagues is that Hamlet and Ophelia had >textual relations. Bravo! I vote we give him the last word on the subject. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:53:39 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0109 Abridged MND; CD ROM; Shakespeare and the Bible Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0109. Tuesday, 13 February 1996. (1) From: Louis Scheeder Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 11:03:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: Abridged MND (2) From: Michael E. Cohen Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 07:48:36 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0096 Qs: CD ROM (3) From: Marty Hyatt Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 17:00:54 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shakespeare and the Bible (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Scheeder Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 11:03:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Abridged MND I remember seeing abridged versions of many of the plays published by Samuel French about twenty years ago. If memory serves, they were prepared for a series of performances at the New York World's Fair of 1939. You might inquire of French. Louis Scheeder (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael E. Cohen Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 07:48:36 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0096 Qs: CD ROM In SHK 7.0096 Kathleen Brookfield wrote >I quote a message written by a man whose first language is not English. He is >very interested in literature, but finds Shakespeare difficult to understand. > > "Would it not be great if we can buy a CD with the play on, > you can stop it, click on for an explanation. ( for block-heads who need > one..). Well.. that would be the ticket!" > >First, if such an educational tool exists (an electronic Arden edition), I >would like to know. If not, the idea is free to any with entrepreneurial >leanings. There are a number of editions of individual plays on CD-ROM (I produced one myself for the Voyager Company), and some text compilations. I won't go into the details of what is already available since others on this list have done so and their suggestions can be seen by searching the list's back issues. But do you really think that an "electronic Arden" edition would be of significantly more value than a paper edition, and that producing such an edition can be thought of as an entrepreneurial task? In my experience, computers as devices for experiencing literature are problematic: books are much more physically comfortable to use and they do what they do extraordinarily well. If one simply reprints an Arden as a digital book, very little is gained and much is lost. Even if one provides some rudimentary "interactive" tools (building in a search engine and perhaps hypertextually layering the footnotes "behind" the displayed text rather than interrupting the screen with visibly distracting footnotes) not much is gained and the reading experience is still not enhanced much. In my experience, a literary CD-ROM (Shakespeare or otherwise) must supply a good deal of "value-added" content beyond that which a physical book can ordinarily deliver before using the CD becomes a satisfying experience rather than a drudgery. Producing one is a very labor intensive task: just think, added to the already difficult task of producing a useful book-type edition of Shakespeare, you have to add to it all the ancillary scholarly apparatus that would be overwhelming in a mass-market/educational print edition (e.g. full concordance [interactive], collation) as well as the multimedia trappings that CD-ROM buyers have come to expect: say, copious color illustrations and performances (spoken or video). No ordinary entrepreneur would touch such a task, because it is costly, requires much work, and doesn't have the market to justify the cost and the work. That is not to say that such works won't be produced in the future, and that some don't exist now; it IS to suggest that good literary CD-ROMs will be slow in coming, variable in quality, and be mixed in with an awful lot of dross (called by some in the multimedia industry "shovelware"). Michael E. Cohen aka (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marty Hyatt Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 17:00:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare and the Bible Roger Stritmatter is not on the SHAKSPER list, but he asked me to forward this response to John Velz's message. There might be some confusion between Cranmer and Coverdale. I believe "Cranmer's Bible" refers to some of the Coverdale translations in the 1540's with a prologue by Cranmer. Marty Hyatt ******************************************* Roger's message: On February 4 John Velz wrote as follows: [material on cryptograms, spoofs etc. deleted for economy]: > Richmond Noble demonstrated long ago (1935; *Shakespeare's Use of the > Bible and the Book of Common Prayer*) that Shakespeare was very fond of > Thomas Cranmer's translation of the Psalms, which he remembers in his > many Psalm echoes, while all the while drawing the rest of his Bible > echoes first from the Bishops' and (beginning in 1597) sometimes from > the Geneva. (His memory of Bishops and Cranmer together probably shows > his childhood of attendance at Holy Trinity, Stratford, where both were > used in services.) Many of Naseeb Shaheen's significant points about > Shakespeare's debt to the Bible first appeared in Noble. In his several > publications on the subject, Shaheen credits Noble generally but not in > many particular cases, where the casual scholar may credit Shaheen with > Noble's insights. These comments deserve some further context. Richmond Noble is rightly credited with establishing the most sophisticated methodology for determining local sources of specific verses or translations of the Bible based on lexical variation. And it is also true that many of the examples cited by Shaheen -- though his list is far more complete than Noble's -- were first cited by Noble or other scholars to whom Shaheen gives no credit. Indeed in my recent (largely laudatory) review of Shaheen's study of the comedies in *The Elizabethan Review*, I stated that "in assessing the relative contribution of...previous scholars...one begins to feel slightly uneasy that Shaheen's empirical strictness does not extend to the historical dimension of his study. Because Shaheen does not cite Carter or Noble, except for the purposes of refutation, it is not easy to know when the postulated sources have been identified by Shaheen himself, and when he has taken a tip from prior scholars or students." However, I am bound to remark that Dr. Velz's implication that Noble proves Shakespeare's most frequently cited Biblical text to have been Cranmer's psalter seems to me to be at best a rather partial citation of Noble's views and of the state of the art of Biblical source studies. Noble set out to examine the empirical evidence for Shakespeare's specific Biblical sources in the first place only because Carter in 1905 claimed to have established that "the Genevan was the [Bible] version used by Shakespeare." At the time of his study, no scholar was prepared to verify or deny such a claim. What Noble found was that although in a preponderance of cases in which a justification of one Biblical translation over another could be established, Shakespeare's usage followed the Genevan, there were a significant number of readings in which he followed the Bishops, the Great Bible, or other variant translations -- primarily the Bishops. This view has been amply confirmed in Shaheen's trilogy, with further intriguing examples from both the Genevan and the Bishops. It is certainly true that in those cases in which a determination can be made between the Psalter against the Geneva Psalms, the reference is usually to the Psalter, though there are a few illuminating contrary cases which will undoubtedly prove of much greater historical interest as Shakespeare studies enters the next century considering new paradigms of authorship. But this is not the same thing as claiming that somehow the Psalter has a prominence over the Geneva text *as a whole* in Shakespeare's Biblical imagination. As for the implication that the Bishop's is more important than the Geneva to Shakespeare, I fail to see how Dr. Velz can possibly justify this inference. Still less does it seem to me that his parenthetical claim that Shakespeare's allusions to the Geneva text postdate 1597 can be justified without smuggling assumptions about textual chronology into the discussion. Certainly there is no reason at all, based on our knowledge of variant sources, to conclude that Shakespeare's edition of the Geneva should have been any later than 1570 or 1576 (when the first edition printed in England appeared under Walsingham's patronage with the Thomson New Testament attached). As for the biographical conjectures about Stratford which clearly form the basis for Dr. Velz's speculations about how "Shakespeare" acquired his Biblical knowledge, it must be remarked that they bear an uncanny resemblance to to the well-known parable by Rudyard Kipling about how the Leopard got its spots. Most Sincerely, Roger Stritmatter University of Massachusetts at Amherst. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:56:52 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0110 Re: Bastards Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0110. Tuesday, 13 February 1996. (1) From: Joanne Woolway Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 18:04:04 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Natural born characters (2) From: Helen Vella Bonavita Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 13:36:30 +0800 (WST) Subj: Re: Bastards (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Woolway Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 18:04:04 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Natural born characters David Reinheimer, You could try reading Alison Findlay's _Illegitimate Power: Bastards in Renaissance Drama_ Manchester UP/ St Martin's Press, 1994. There's a review of it in EMLS 1.1: http://unixg.ubc.ca:7001/0/e-sources/emls/emlshome.html Joanne Woolway (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Vella Bonavita Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 13:36:30 +0800 (WST) Subject: Re: Bastards Dear David Reinheimer, Having just finished a thesis on bastardy in Shakespeare's histories, I leapt at your question like a trout to a fly. I would be very interested to know which bastards you have come across - yes, there are lots. The threat of bastardy tends to be used more than the actuality - *A Fair Quarrel* is the obvious example, which in itself is curious. Actually, Middleton uses bastardy with great enthusiasm and force in several of his plays. There is also Webster's *The Devil's Law-Case*, where a woman attempts to prove her son illegitimate. You might also be interested in *The Bastard*, a play attributed to Cosmo Manuche, and published in 1652. If you read it though, it seems much more like an early Jacobean drama, and there's really very little evidence that Manuche wrote it. Best wishes, Helen Vella Bonavita (University of Western Australia) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 10:03:04 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0111 Re: Old Athenian Law; ISA Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0111. Tuesday, 13 February 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 22:32:49 -0500 (EST) Subj: Old Athenian Law; (2) From: Cary Mazer Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 14:55:15 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0106 Qs: ISA (3) From: Naomi Liebler Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 96 00:20:00 EST Subj: RE: SHK 7.0106 Qs: ISA (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 22:32:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Old Athenian Law; Concerning "you are as a form in wax / By him imprinted" (1.1.49-50), I'll speculate that the sentence relates to the common Renaissance idea that females were matter (cf. Latin "mater") or substance, and males were "form." So women provided the substance of the baby, and men provided the form. As recall, Edgar Wind discusses the concept in *Pagan Mysteries.* So in *MND* "wax" is the female substance, the form of which was printed by Egeus. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cary Mazer Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 14:55:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0106 Qs: ISA Re: The ISA meeting, another question: has anyone received the schedule and/or hotel reservations iformation yet? Cary (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Liebler Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 96 00:20:00 EST Subject: RE: SHK 7.0106 Qs: ISA Joanne Whalen asked about registration materials for the ISA which meets April 7-14 in Los Angeles. I spoke with Nancy Hodge, Exec. Director of the SAA, who told me that the materials are late in coming because the International co-ordinators (in England) hadn't yet sent in THEIR part of the packet. Nancy expects them next week and will shortly thereafter get all the pertinent stuff out to everyone. Hang in there. It'll soon be in the mail. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 10:13:38 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0112 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0112. Tuesday, 13 February 1996. (1) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 15:55:55 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0107 Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 22:11:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0102 Re: Funeral Elegy (3) From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 23:25:20 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0107 Re: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 15:55:55 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0107 Re: Funeral Elegy David Kathman likes the Funeral Elegy to be by Shakespeare. He finds Don Foster's evidence to be "surprisingly broad and surprisingly persuasive," and credits Shaxicon for providing"some of the most compelling evidence" for the case. Kathman thinks the long poem is a smooth piece of work, "almost effortless" beside the funereal labors George Chapman, Sir John Davies, or Thomas Heywood. Let's take a look at Chapman first. I have very little reference at hand, and I'll use only The Penguin Book of Elizabethan Verse to draw comparisons. Here is Chapman speaking of death, Umbra's elegy on the killing of Bussy D'Ambois, Act V, Scene 4 (1607). "Farewell, brave relics of a complete man, Look up and see thy spirit made a star; Join flames with Hercules, and when thou sett'st Thy radiant forehead in the firmament, Make the vast crystal crack with thy receipt; Spread to the world of fire, and the aged sky Cheer with new sparks of old humanity." That's a fine farewell, second-rate only to Horatio's send off of Hamlet, and in the Funeral Elegy we are to believe that Shakespeare wrote this earth-bound dud. What can we leave behind us but a name, Which, by a life well led, may honor have? Such honor, O thou youth untimely lost, Thou didst deserve and hast; for though thy soul Hath took her flight to a diviner coast, Yet here on earth thy fame lives ever whole, In every heart sealed up, in every tongue Fit matter to discourse, no day prevented That pities not thy sad and sudden wrong, Of all alike beloved and lamented." (195-204) My guess is that the poet was asleep when he wrote this. David Kathman also offers Sir John Davies as a lesser poet than the unknown W.S. in these matters. Let's compare these lines of Davies, written in 1599: "For though the Soul do seem her grave to bear, And in this world is almost buried quick, We have no cause the body's death to fear, For when the Shell is broke, out comes a chick." This is a bit too barnyardy and light-hearted for my own taste, but the poet has at least risked a metaphore, which W.S. never does. Here's the Elegy on the same theme of rebirth: "So henceforth all (great glory to his blood) Shall be but seconds to him, being good. The wicked end their honor with their sin In death, which only then the good begin." (345-348) The above is a good example of the boggling abstraction of the Elegy. There is never a fresh image or bright idea in the whole of it. Kathman suggests that there's a loss of heart which saps the strength of one's language when writing a poem about a dear friend departed, but I doubt that. Evidently he supports Richard Abrams theory that there's a deliberate "anti-imaginative quality to the poem." That's rather a quaint notion, the shutting down of your poetic powers to show your grief at a friend's death, sort of like cutting a finger off, but not as neat. As for Thomas Heywood, I found no elegy in the Penquin Book, but here's a sample of the man's work: "The nimble Fairies, taking hand in hand, Will skip like rather lambkins in the downs The tender grass unbended still shall stand, Cool Zephyrus still flaring up their gowns; And every shephard's swain will tune his ode, And more than these, to welcome thy abode." A lovely little piece, and the cool critical wind that blows up the skirts of the Elegy will find Chapman, Davies, and Heywood to be easy masters of this unknown W.S. After half a thousand lines, the author of the Elegy has tired even himself with the dead weight of his verse, and re-evaluates the situation: "But since the sum of all that can be said Can be but said that "He was good"......(531-532 I'm ready to believe it, and wish that he had said that right off, and quit while he was ahead. But you must read the poem for yourself and make your own opinion. Kathman allows for that: "People's esthetic judgements of a poem are valuable and useful..." That is, second only to Shaxicon. Well, God rest poor John Peter. The bad news is that he was killed, but the good news is that he didn't have to read his own Elegy. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 22:11:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0102 Re: Funeral Elegy The discussion of the Funeral Elegy, with mention of "surprisingly persuasive" evidence reminds me of the scene in the Emperor's New Clothes where the tailors are describing the clothes to visitors, pointing out the delicacy of the lace, the intricate patterns on the buttons, the richness of the fabrics. If someone could point out one poem we can be sure that's Shakespeare that's even HALF as bad as this one, I'll begin to pay attention to the "surprisingly persuasive" evidence. Stephanie Hughes Are you guys all right? I'm worried about you. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 23:25:20 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0107 Re: Funeral Elegy Bill Godshalk has questioned Don Foster's inference that the Elegy quarto was privately printed and not meant for public sale, and he makes some points that are definitely worth considering. While I have no particular attachment to the "privately printed" scenario and don't see it as crucial or even particularly important for the question of whether Shakespeare wrote the Elegy, I'd like to respond to some of Bill's points, in the spirit of scholarly give-and-take. * First of all, we need to make clear that publisher, printer, and bookseller were distinct roles in Elizabethan England. The publisher owned the copyright and bore the financial burden (and reaped any profits); the printer did the actual printing; and the bookseller sold the finished product. Sometimes all three roles were filled by the same person, but more often than not there were two, and sometimes three or more, people involved. Most publishers were also printers or booksellers, or both; thus George Eld was a printer who was also a publisher, in that he owned the rights to some (but not all) of the works he printed. Thomas Thorpe, though, was neither a printer nor a bookseller; he had to hire a printer for each of the works he published, and he also had to get somebody to sell them. Thus *Shakespeare's Sonnets*, published by Thorpe, was printed by George Eld and sold by John Wright and William Aspley. * Bill points out that the title-page of *The Puritan* is identical to that of the *Funeral Elegy*, in that it only lists Eld's name and the date. However, one significant difference is that Eld was not only the printer of *The Puritan*, but also the publisher; he entered it in the Stationer's Register on August 6, 1607, and thus owned the copyright. The *Funeral Elegy*, though, was entered in the Register by Thorpe, and the unusual thing about it is that Thorpe's name or initials appear nowhere in the volume. When a publisher hired out the printing of a book, he almost always put his name or initials either on the title page or on a dedicatory epistle. Thorpe did so on all the books he published in a 25-year career with only two exceptions: the *Elegy* and John Taylor's *Eighth Wonder of the World* (1613), which Foster speculated was "one of many such projects financed by Taylor himself". Looking at the title page alone can be misleading. Thorpe's first independent publication, Marlowe's translation of Lucan (1600) lacks his name on the title page (it was printed by Peter Short and sold by Walter Burre), but he signed a dedicatory epistle to Edward Blount; and at least one of Bill's list of books bearing only Eld's name on the title page (*St. Augustine, of the Citie of God*) also has a dedicatory epistle by Thorpe. I haven't checked, but I suspect that many of the other books in Bill's list were either published by Eld (and thus required no other name on the t.p.) or had dedicatory epistles by the publisher. (I don't find very tenable Bill's suggestion that Eld may have "assumed the role of publisher" for the Elegy; he may have sold it, but the Stationer's company was pretty strict about who held the rights to works, and the Register definitely says Thorpe held the rights to this one.) * Bill also wonders why W.S. had the Elegy printed rather than just circulating it in manuscript. One reason is that print is more permanent than manuscript, and W.S. tells us that he wanted to set the record straight about Peter for posterity. A 1610 agreement between Thomas Bodley and the Stationer's Company stipulated that the Bodleian Library at Oxford would receive a copy of every book published in England, and in fact one of the two surviving copies of the Elegy is in the Bodleian; I find plausible Foster's speculation that W.S. knew that his Elegy would at least be preserved in the Bodleian if it was committed to print. Just some thoughts to be considered. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 10:20:03 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0113 N. California Renaissance Conference; CFP Medieval Studies Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0113. Tuesday, 13 February 1996. (1) From: Stephen Ratcliffe Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 14:10:49 -0800 Subj: Northern California Renaissance Conference (2) From: A. S. Weber Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 19:12:56 -0500 (EST) Subj: CFP Medieval Studies (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Ratcliffe Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 14:10:49 -0800 Subject: Northern California Renaissance Conference The Northern California Renaissance Conference will be held at Mills College on April 27, 1996. Keynote address by Janet Adelman of U.C. Berkeley. For more information, contact Stephen Ratcliffe, Dept. English. Mills College Oakland, CA 94613, email sratclif@mills.edu. fax (510)430-3314 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: A. S. Weber Date: Monday, 12 Feb 1996 19:12:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: CFP Medieval Studies This may be of interest to Renaissance, Medieval, and Early Modern scholars. Alan S. Weber br00126@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu ****************************************************** CALL FOR PAPERS ****************************************************** WRITING CULTURES / MAKING CULTURES: SITES, STAGES AND SCENARIOS OF MEDIEVAL STUDIES SUNY CEMERS 1996 30th Annual CEMERS Conference Binghamton, NY October 18 - 19, 1996 Deadline for abstracts: June 1, 1996 This conference will engage the interdisciplinary domain of Medieval Studies from two distinct but ultimately related directions. We will examine the reception by medievalists of newer theoretical paradigms, in particular the engagement with the notion of culture and the recourse to the methodologies of Rcultural studiesS: this process has occurred long enough that a review of its outcomes is both possible and desirable. We are particularly interested in the implications of new research directions for pedagogical principle and curriculum design, especially in the larger context of the current redefinition of the objectives and responsibilities of American higher education. We envision poster sessions featuring integrative pedagogical projects of particular interest. At the same time, we will examine the active involvement, actual or potential, of Medieval Studies in the production of culture, in various senses of that word. In particular, we will review the institutional and disciplinary spaces within which Medieval Studies is constituted and from which it variously addresses a range of audiences both in and beyond the academy. SUNY CEMERS itself, at its 30th anniversary, offers a promising object for such a review; others include the wide spectrum of interdisciplinary centers and research programs in colleges and universities, departments of medieval art in museums, and related institutions (especially those with active and innovative outreach programs), research centers and archives, and publishing houses. We also hope to review the range of serial publications in Medieval Studies publishing work by medievalists on a regular basis. Contact: Charles Burroughs, Director, CEMERS Binghamton University P.O. Box 6000 Binghamton, NY 13902 - 6000 TEL: 607 - 777 - 2730 E-Mail: CEMERS@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 13:09:41 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0114 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Character Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 114. Wednesday, 14 February 1996. (1) From: W. Russell Mayes, Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 10:15:50 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters (Part II) (2) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 13:15:57 -0500 Subj: Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? (3) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 13:54:59 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0104 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters (4) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 10:53:47 -0800 (PST) Subj: Character (5) From: Gerda Grice Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 15:25:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations (6) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 16:05:13 -0500 Subj: Re: Hamlet & Ophelia (7) From: Michael Saenger Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 23:45:20 -0500 (EST) Subj: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters (8) From: Naomi Liebler Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 96 00:18:00 EST Subj: RE: SHK 7.0108 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters (9) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 96 07:26:59 EST Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 9 Feb 1996 to 10 Feb 1996 (10) From: Yu Jin Ko Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 1996 12:10:17 -0500 (EST) Subj: Hamlet & Ophelia... (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. Russell Mayes, Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 10:15:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters (Part II) I don't disagree with Janis Lull's point, but I take it as a place of departure to respond to Hardy's interesting post. The problem he describes, and the problem many people are now arguing about, can (and in my feelings should) be historicized. So, when Janis Lull writes: > After Samuel Johnson, I can hardly believe anyone is still arguing > about that. "Imitations produce pain or pleasure," wrote Johnson, "not because > they are mistaken for realities, but because they bring realities to mind . . > We are agitated in reading the history of *Henry* the Fifth, yet no man takes > his book for the field of Agencourt" (*Preface to Shakespeare*). I want to point out that Johnson can hardly claim to be the first to make this insight. Heywood makes almost exactly the same point in his _Apology for Actors_. The problem is Stubbes and others argue that "Imitations" _are_ taken for realities. In other words, to some people in Shakespeare's London it would make a great deal of difference whether Hamlet and Ophelia had slept together, while other people would exclaim "She's just a character!" I don't see that it will help us to know which of these is "the truth;" both are legitimate responses. As several others have pointed out--and as Hardy's post originally indicated--all of us do both at one point or another. W. Russell Mayes Jr. University of North Carolina at Asheville (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 13:15:57 -0500 Subject: Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations? I have to agree with Terry Hawkes and his colleagues. Even a moderately close reading will reveal that Hamlet has text not only with Ophelia but just about everyone else in the play. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 13:54:59 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0104 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters >Gertrude and Old Hamlet also had >sexual relations prior to their marriage, but that takes too long to tell. Aw, c'mon, Steve, tell it, we've got time. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 10:53:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Character I found that Surajit Bose's response was quite compelling, although I'm not sure that I agree that the "final word" on this ought to be granted to an aphorism. If I may weigh in on this topic, I would like to refer readers to an article I never finished and which I never submitted anywhere, but which was _apparently_ in character for me to have written (and never to have completed), and which my imaginary biographer, writing my "life," will one day probably want to situate in relation to the "story" of my "life," if he can find evidence of its existence on my hard-drive. It is an article on the idea of character. In it I distinguish between the dramatis persona as something signified and the dramatis persona as a signifier. The former belongs to that imaginary "possible world" represented in the text; the latter belongs to the conditions of that possible world. The borders between the the two are certainly permeable, but, to be brief (although it is not in my character to be brief), it is the former, the persona as a signified, that debates over sexual relations belong to, and apparently a lot of classromm discussion; it is the latter, the persona as a signifier, that an actor has to be primarily concerned with, and that most sophisticated criticism is devoted to as well. Although I am mainly of the textual relations school, I would like to add that part of the feature of the persona as a textual signifier is that this signifier is understood to have the nature of what Barthes called a "precious remainder." In other words, signifers like "Ophelia" are more than the sum of their (textual) parts; they signify as subjects who have pasts and possible futures, not all of which are necessarily disclosed in the texts to which they seem to belong, and they signify as subjects with identities over time, from textual locus to textual locus, even if those "identities" are not necessarily deep, psychologistic, or philosophically coherent. It would have been possible to write another play about Ophelia (before her suicide), just as it was possible to write another play about Falstaff; and that's because they are signfiers with precious remainders as well as signified characters in the prison of their original text's mimetic "world." And by the way, I think it is absolutely wrong to believe that undergraduates are only capable of being taught about the mimetic world where characters live, copulate, and die, as if the mimetic world were actually a part of "nature"; they are perfectly capable of being encouraged to examine how characters are constructed out of discursive conventions and codes. And one doesn't need to bring in a volume of Lacan's Seminars in order to encourage them to do this. As soon as one asks them (as we all do, I imagine) to think about how one might stage a particular scene, or perform a piece of dialogue, one is already moving away from the "natural life" of the characters, and into something like characterological performance. And there are other methods. I've shown students a film of R&J (Zefferelli's) in juxtaposition with the film version of West Side Story. As soon as one asks why Zefferelli's characters are so different from the ones we imagine when reading the script, or why WSS's Maria is so different from Juliet, even though all these "characters" are in many respects identical, _the same_, one begins to see not only the uncertain fluidities involved in the construction of a dramatis persona but also how social conventions and historical circumstances (which both R&J and WSS alike mock and reduplicate) delimit the possibilities involved in having a "life," and even those structures in keeping with which a person or a persona might copulate and die. Robert Appelbaum (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gerda Grice Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 15:25:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0101 Re: Hamlet & Ophelia: Sexual Relations Weren't Ophelia's funeral rites "maimed" because she was suspected of having committed suicide rather than because she was suspected of having been unchaste? Gerda Grice ggrice@acs.ryerson.ca (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 16:05:13 -0500 Subject: Re: Hamlet & Ophelia Sorry if it makes nonsense of Ophelia's function in the rest of the play, but the song she sings in her mental derangement makes the facts clear--not only that she and Hamlet had sex, but that they did it in his bed, and that he seduced her with a pledge of marriage: Quoth she before you tumbled me you promised me to wed He answers So would I a done by yonder sun an thou hadst not come to my bed Another informative song lyric lets us know that Polonius was a Jew. Hamlet calls him a "judge of Israel." This helps explain the controversy over Ophelia's Christian burial. It's surprising that commentators have been so silent about this. (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 23:45:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters Heather Stephenson gave a thoughtful response to my comments on Hamlet, Ophelia and real characters. I think her use of the word "choice" is very important, because however frustrating it may be for some, Shakespeare's work thrives from the exercise of choice. I am concerned about this gap between the stage and the university, and it seems it is only getting wider. One big thorn in this troubled relationship is Stanislavsky, and his effect on virtually all modern thinking on the theater. If it has gotten to the point that an academic can be blind to Ophelia's hints, we need some kind of a marriage counselor. I have seen two conference attempts to mediate this and both were horrendous failures; it was as if different languages were spoken. Perhaps we should stop looking for stable selves in the past when post-structuralist theory has proven we cannot find them now. Gender theory has proved that we are role-players, as Jacques says, and that we do not exist outside our text, so why should Ophelia? But our lives, like Hamlet, keep on implying selves in faint shadows, and however sophisticated we are in the academe, we live by another set of truths. This, alas, is the gap between the academics and the performers/non-academics. The former have a language of knowing and the latter have a language of doing. Shakespeare was a knowing doer. I personally was inspired into Shakespeare studies through performing plays, and in performance I saw structures that were constantly changing, webs that were always shifting and only partly under my control; the plays seemed to have an oddly magical ability to respond to us, to come to life, so to speak. One thing I have found about original performance conditions is that they absolutely accomodated choice. Actors were changed, scripts revised, plays cut, topical allusions were inserted, not to mention the fact that they were built with a self-consciously unstable language. So these were, from the start, living, flexible things, which is part of why they survive so well. They were initially built to withstand instability, in fact to use it, not like an edifice, but rather like an old bi-wing plane built to handle air from any side. Such fine bi-wing planes, in fact, that they continue to fly in accents then undreamt of, in countries then undiscovered. Michael Saenger University of Toronto (8)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Liebler Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 96 00:18:00 EST Subject: RE: SHK 7.0108 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Characters Richard Bovard writes: "We seem to have three levels of response here. At one level, in the classroom, the question seems important. Undergraduate students who are just learning to read, interpret, and criticize "Hamlet" frequently ask this question. Fine distinctions between "character" and "person" may not stimulate such students." Ah, but it does. My students are hit hard and often with exactly that distinction. The conflation of representation and ":real people," I number among several "Cherished Assumptions" that they have inherited and that have done nothing for them but keep them adrift in a sea of confusing "interpretations" that persist in making them feel stupid and alienated from the study of SHakespeare or indeed of any drama. Unsurprisingly, when they are able to let go of those "Cherished Assumptions," and begin to see these "characters" as representations, an amazing number of my students become quite smart--that is, they begin to see the possibility for themselves of actually comprehending this shibboleth "Shakespeare." Stimulated they certainly are--and I find myself having to assign numbers to keep the class participation orderly. No bad thing. Try it. Representationally, Naomi Liebler (9)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 96 07:26:59 EST Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 9 Feb 1996 to 10 Feb 1996 exfoliating ophelias . . . . Though I have trouble connecting the e-mail John Drakakis with the physically exigent reification experienced at various SAA conferences, I have equal trouble fusing into a single entity "Ophelia" the diverse critters I've seen on stages and in movies and in the 1603, 1605, and 1623 texts of that play. Hardy Cook suggests different Queens appear in these versions. Yup. And there seem to be different scripted instructions for constructing stage realizations of Ophelia too. F'rinstance, check out who is onstage during the songs she sings: In Q1 she sings the mourning song to the King, the sexy song to Brother Laeertes. In Q2 and F, the King hears the Valentine's Day ballad, Laertes gets t he dirge. The players surrounding the singer have different responses too. So maybe we have deliciously different possibilities. As your local Ophelia to try out both versions with a troupe. Ask her to consider the manifold sexual couplings, triplings, or guilty solitaires possible in a hermetically sealed castle where one brother poisons another to gain possession of a sexually stirring imaginative construct. Hey, folks. PLAY these scripts. Again, after silence, Urquartowitz (10)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Yu Jin Ko Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 1996 12:10:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Hamlet & Ophelia... It seems to me that there are distinct issues which are being conflated in the recent discussion on what I believe is a very important topic. First, I think we should make a distinction between whether a play raises a certain question and whether it can answer it. Those who suggest that the question of Ophelia's chastity is irrelevant tend to work rather circularly: what's unanswerable is so because of its general irrelevance. This is a version of the anti-Bradleyan line that the question of why a character performs a peculiar act is irrelevant because Shakespeare did not fashion characters whose psychologies could answer such a question. In _Hamlet_, however, though the answers are frustratingly not offered, the question under discussion is certainly raised. Consider that the primary action of the central character for so long consists in resisting attempts by others to pluck out the heart of his mystery, in asserting, that is, his inscrutability according to the available models of behavioral reading. Consider also the play's preoccupation with forms of "acting" and other kinds of representation. Surely one can safely say that the play investigates the problematic relationship between outward show and that within; after all, a part of what fascinates us about Hamlet is the elusiveness of his character -- how outward shows only act as furtive hints to the "mystery" of his subjectivity (if I am slipping into a quasi- essentialist reading, it's only because the play demands that kind of reading, even if one is to conclude that, as Terry Eagleton suggests, what exists in his heart's core is a kind of nothing). In asking whether Ophelia's bawdy songs hint at something we were not able to perceive earlier, we're only extending to her character one animating question in the play. Indeed, in my view, the outward movement of the question concerning identity to the "minor" characters and into the darker shadows of the play (to use a metaphor) constitutes one major action of the play. It is only to Hamlet-centered critics that extending the question of identity to others in the play is heresy. And here is the irony. It is much easier to keep Ophelia under the lid of some normative behavioral, or theatrical model (obedient daughter whose frail mind snaps) than to rethink our perception of her, to acknowledge that there might be areas that are unreadable according to those models. In dismissing her characterological complexity, however, readers engage in a kind of laziness that in this play is associated with a moral laxity particular to Hamlet: engrossed in his subjectivity, in his conviction of his autonomous illegibility, he casually pins down others with formulated phrases, thus denying subjectivity to others. It is a short step from Hamlet to the self-obsessed indulgences that blind a Childe Harolde to the complex reality of others. The true Mousetrap of _Hamlet_ is the prison of Hamlet's mind -- the trap that readers who dismiss hints of illegible complexity in others find themselves in. Yu Jin Ko Wellesley College ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 13:15:22 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0115 Re: Old Athenian Law Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 115. Wednesday, 14 February 1996. (1) From: W. Russell Mayes Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 10:13:46 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Old Athenian Law (2) From: John Velz Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 17:23:53 +0200 Subj: Old Athenian Law (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. Russell Mayes Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 10:13:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Old Athenian Law Kathleen Brookfield writes: > I am curious about the reference > " ....you are but as a form in wax > By him imprinted, and within his power > To leave the figure, or disfigure it." My understanding of these lines is that they refer to the Aristotelian version of childbirth: Women provide the "substance" men the "form." W. Russell Mayes Jr. University of North Carolina at Asheville (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 17:23:53 +0200 Subject: Old Athenian Law It won't answer all of Katherine Bookfield's questions, but one approach is to be found in the comments I made 18 years ago on a possible origin of the law-vs.-love motif in *MND* and other Shn. plays, esp. those with Greek settings, *Errors*, notably. I proposed a background in the Pauline Epistles which insist on the contrast between Old Testament Law and New Testament Love. See "The Ancient World in Shakespeare: Authenticity or Anachronism: A Retrospect." *Shakespeare Survey* 31 (1978): 1-12. Best wishes for the hunt! John ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 13:26:50 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0116 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 116. Wednesday, 14 February 1996. (1) From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 15:05:12 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0112 Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 21:41:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: FE (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 15:05:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0112 Re: Funeral Elegy I'd like to ask those most involved in the debate about the poem's authorship: "why does this matter?" I don't mean to deliberately obtuse or provocative, but what is at stake for those for and against the inclusion of this text in Shakespeare's canon? Simon Morgan-Russell Department of English Bowling Green State University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 1996 21:41:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: FE I want to thank Dave Kathman for his great response to my initial comments on Eld's printing. Yes, Dave is absolutely correct. Thorp or Thorpe entered FE in the Stationers Register and had the rights to the book. I was simply speculating that Eld may have an informal agreement with Thorpe to assume his rights -- and thus leave Thorpe's name from the title page. But Thorpe's role in the process, I think, needs to be considered. (I have yet to generate a copy of Thorpe's bibliography.) Since Eld's name does appear on the title page, he may have sold the book -- assuming that it was sold -- and not distributed gratis. Manuscripts -- bound manuscripts -- are no less permanent than books. Middleton manuscripts are still extant -- as are mss. by many 16th-17th century authors. The ink and the paper are still quite fine. Finally, I'd like some truly solid evidence that FE was privately printed and paid for by Shakespeare. If Dave's scenario is correct, the printing was paid for by Thorpe. If Thorpe didn't sell books, how did he make his money? Commissions? On what? If Thorpe was not a printer, and assuming FE was privately printed, by didn't Shakespeare go directly to Eld -- the printer who had printed the Sonnets? Why go through Thorpe, the middle man? In *Some Aspects of London Publishin*, Greg discusses anomalous title pages -- "about 150 in fact" (85). He suggests several ways to account for these title pages. He says, "it might happen . . . that a bookseller who had purchased a copy would not at the moment find it convenient to pay for an edition, but might know of a printer willing . . . to bear the risk and take the profit of an edition, allowing him the benefit of distribution and retention of the copy" (88). Let me emphasize that Greg is here merely speculating, but the speculation MAY in the case of FE be correct. Anyway, Dave, in the spirit of scholarly research, let's keep looking. I looked Thorpe up in R. B. McKerrow's Dictionary this evening, and found less information than you have. Where have you been looking? Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 13:31:21 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0117 Re: Pericles; Q: John Bulwer Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 117. Wednesday, 14 February 1996. (1) From: David Skeele Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 96 16:44:21 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0103 Re: Pericles; (2) From: Katherine Rowe Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 1996 09:51:01 -0500 Subj: John Bulwer (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Tuesday, 13 Feb 96 16:44:21 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0103 Re: Pericles; I was intrigued by Kristen Olson's description of _Shakespeare and the Theatre of Wonder_, and I would love to hear more about it. I am in the process of revising a dissertation for publication as a book, and this book may be germane to the task. My study is a cultural history of _Pericles_ in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and my chapter on poststructuralist criticism is a little light. Specifically, I am looking for treatments which do _not_ seek to unify the play, but instead either celebrate the text's apparent fragmentation or at least render the question irrelevant (I've found that most contemporary critics, even if they are card-carrying poststructuralists in every other respect, can't seem to resist applying some sort of unifying pattern to the play). I would love help from Kristen or any other SHAKSPERians who might steer me to some new material. Thanks! David Skeele Slippery Rock University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Katherine Rowe Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 1996 09:51:01 -0500 Subject: John Bulwer Can anyone recommend strong critical essays on John Bulwer (of Chirologia, Anthropometamorphosis, etc.) or his work? Thanks. Katherine Rowe Yale University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 15:35:41 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0118 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: LORI BERENSON Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 118. Wednesday, 14 February 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, February 14, 1996 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: LORI BERENSON Bernice W. Kliman has just supplied me with the most recent information about the plight of Lori Berenson, the daughter of one of her colleagues. If you would be interested in obtaining this material from the SHAKSPER Fileserver, send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET LORI BERENSON". Some of you -- in fact, I'm included here -- are having difficulty with the @ws.BowieState.edu addresses. If you are one of these people, send your request to LISTSERV@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu instead of the above. We really will be fixing this problem in the near future, and at the time the problem is solved I will announce that LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu and SHAKSPER@ws.BowieState.edu will work for everyone. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 11:56:37 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0119 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, Horatio, and Characters Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0119. Thursday, 15 February 1996. (1) From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 96 14:48:03 EST Subj: Re: Hamlet & Ophelia (2) From: Christine Jacobson Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 1996 16:41:12 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: Hamlet & Ophelia (3) From: Al Cacicedo Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 1996 23:49:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Horatio (4) From: Sydney Kasten Date: Thursday, 15 Feb 1996 14:38:58 +0200 (IST) Subj: Re: Hamlet & Ophelia (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 96 14:48:03 EST Subject: Re: Hamlet & Ophelia The question about whether Hamlet reached Ophelia's forfended place is contextualized in stimulating ways by Kathy Eden's recent Poetic and Legal Fiction in the Aristotelian Tradition_, which, as the title indicates, reconstructs the ways in which philosphers, lawyers, critics, and poets from Aristotle to Shakespeare saw and exploited and interchanged the juridical and poetic uses of language. Among other things, the book reminds us that _Hamlet_ is full of trials: all the principal characters are tried, judged, sentenced, punished. Within the play, Hamlet tries the Ghost, Claudius, Gertrude, Ophelia, Polonius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Polonius starts to try Laertes and Hamlet, tries Ophelia. Claudius tries Fortinbras and Hamlet. Laertes tries Hamlet. From without, however, we spectators and readers are invited to try, not only the characters (they are only fictions, after all, dreams of passion), but also, in a more abstract way, ideas and institutions. The family is on trial. So is marriage. Patriarchy, and its political expression monarchy. The validity of sensory experience. The truth of ghosts and dreams. Friendship. Early modern courtship practices, both political and erotic. Life. God. And as we know from the the trial of O. J. Simpson, trials are most interesting and memorable when the facts are, even at the end, in dispute. It would be much easier for us to reach a verdict on Hamlet's culpability of the death of Ophelia--for the culpability of any man for the sorrows of any maid--if we knew for sure if and if so how he had brought her to open her chaste treasure to his importunity. That we do not seems to me part and parcel of the ambiguity that invests the process of almost all the trials in and of the play. Juridically, David Evett (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Jacobson Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 1996 16:41:12 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: Hamlet & Ophelia I feel compelled to jump into this discussion, if I may, even though I am a novice and a very new member to "Shaksper". Possibly if members could consider a similar relationship between young lovers in modern film, "Splender In The Grass", 1961, starring Natalie Wood and Warren Beatty. It comes to mind that this is a similar relationship situation. The heroine, although intent on keeping her virginity, attempts to commit suicide by drowning after being betrayed by her lover. Certain similarities between Shakespeare's Hamlet and this l961 romance on celophane strike me. If you agree, one could see how it is possible to interpret their relationship as being uncomsumated, but driving the characters, especially Ophelia, slightly mad, in any case. I'm only beginning to discern the many mirrors Shakespeare manages to hold up to us. Yours respectfully, Christine Jacobson. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Al Cacicedo Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 1996 23:49:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Horatio A recent posting on the Ophelia/character/personhood issue reminds me of the Supreme Court decision that gives all us good Americans a penumbra of privacy: characters seem to have a penumbra of extratextual personhood. Strict constructionists of the Constitution cringe at the idea of penumbral rights; strict textualists ditto about personhood. All this is by way of wondering about Horatio, who strikes me as equally penumbral in his presentation--not that I think he has had sex with Hamlet, mind you, although Hamlet's wearing him in his heart's core *is* suggestive. Are we seeing a social climber at work in Horatio, who in 1.1 hangs out with soldiers, by 1.2 engages the prince in conversation, becoming Hamlet's heart's- core buddy by 3.2, then (by a metamorphosis almost as wondrous as Ceasar's) turns king's flunky as soon as Hamlet's off to England (so, anyway, I'm tempted to read 4.5--although I grant that he may be protecting the newly pregnant Ophelia instead of brown-nosing their majesties), and at the end is left to recount and interpret everything. What a rising up was there! From Reading (unfortunately a town, not a textual activity) Al Cacicedo Albright College (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sydney Kasten Date: Thursday, 15 Feb 1996 14:38:58 +0200 (IST) Subject: Re: Hamlet & Ophelia Last winter I experienced a production of Hamlet by the Peter Hall Company. The director, in his talk to the Company, excerpted in the program notes, made reference to *the big 20th century question - are they lovers or not?* and answers: *Shakespeare hasn't told us. They have done what is necessary to make their relationship what it is, and when Hamlet turns against her, and then she loses her father, it is enough to make her go mad. When she does, everything that has been repressed comes out and it's violently sexual.* What Mr. Hall doesn't comment on in the notes is the manner in which Ophelia appears in her madness. He has her dressed in a simple shift, the lower portion of which is extensively stained with blood. My own impression at the time was that this was menstrual blood to demonstrate the depth of her regression; that perhaps it was the first menstrual period of an innocent child who had no maternal figure available to comfort her, let alone instruct her. The present discussion raises the possibility that we were seeing the results of a miscarriage or abortion, but I can find no basis for that either in the performance I saw or in the text. Nevertheless, the question raised in this list has opened a Pandora's box, strewing *dangerous conjectures* in this ill breeding mind. *Dangerous* to whom? Scene 5 of Act IV begins with the Queens assertion: *I will not speak with her.* A strange comment from one who has experienced motherhood regarding a freshly orphaned adolescent girl whom she has probably known from birth, on whom, in public, she dotes. And what is the first remark of Ophelia to the beautious majesty of Denmark? The song begins: *How should I YOUR true love know from another one? By his cockle hat and staff and sandal shoon.* The finger is clearly pointing at Gertrude's true love, the wearer of the crown, the bearer of the scepter and the wearer of kingly boots. Is the King capable of rape? Well, he did kill his brother. Of his wooing of Gertrude we have no inkling; he does not have the charming villainy of Richard the III. The unsuccesful attempt at prayer that saved his life has nothing of the acceptance of self of Richard or of Iago, or of the defiance of Macbeth. It smacks more of the contrition of a recidivist who puts himself on the rack of conscience before going out and doing it again. The villainy of Claudius tends, I think, to be undervalued perhaps because of the intensity of ambiant madness, perhaps because it is so controlled. In the short soliloquy after Hamlet and his bodyguards have taken their leave of him, he reveals to us the extent of the power he is conscious of radiating: Autonomous England will agree to be the agent of murder because the scars of the Danish pillage have not yet healed. Claudius is so sure of England's fear that he does not have to make the threat explicit in the letter. Moreover, he can allow a foreign army to march through his realm with perfect confidence in the safety of his people and of his throne. Like the Godfather in the Mafia saga he can speak softly because everyone knows and respects the inexorable strength of his power. How else can we explain the sanctioning of his marriage to Gertrude? In the generation after Henry VIII it is inconceivable that there existed an educated person who was not acquainted with the complicated laws of levirate marriage. A whole tractate of the Talmud is devoted to the apparent contradiction between two verses in the Bible: Leviticus 20:21 and Deuteronomy 25:5. The former is an absolute injunction against marrying a brother's (ex)wife and added emphasis in the verse is the basis of extending the prohibition to include his widow. The verse in Deuteronomy is a positive injunction, just as serious, to marry a dead brother's widow n the event that he died without issue. This injunction is so serious that unless the the surviving brother takes part in a humiliating ceremony the widow in order to release her she is barred from marrying anyone else. The marriage if it takes place is not considered incest. The children are legitimate. Should the widow marry someone else without having been released, she would be committing adultery. This was the basis of Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine, the childless widow of his older brother. (This set of laws is valid in Orthodox Jewish communities to this day. However, since taking two wives is against the law and the idea of marriage forced by circumstance is repugnant, these days the surviving brother is expected to release the widow.) The upshot of all this is that Gertrude, by marrying Claudius was in effect declaring that her son Hamlet was not her dead husband's issue. Otherwise she is guilty of incest. In the world of wave mechanics she would be guilty of both sins until observation determined which. This Claudius, who could get Gertrude to do violence to her honour and his nephew's legitimacy, who could get an ostensibly honest and pedantic retainer to turn himself eagerly into an eavesdropper, and who could count on a foreign king's complicity in murder - could he descend to the crime of rape? Only if the object of his desire did not fall into the general pattern of wilfully complying with his unspoken direction. Was Ophelia the object of his desire? Is there a hint in the closing lines of Act IV scene 3: *till I know 'tis done, Howe'er my haps, my joys were ne'er begun.* Or in another version more explicitly: *--will ne'er begin.* What joys depend on the elimiataion of Hamlet? Now we can understand Gertrude's unwillingness to see Ophelia. The rape has taken place and she is aware of it, or doesn't want to be. And then there is the Queen's report of the drowning of Ophelia. In these beautiful words there is just too much gratuitous detail to make them other than an eyewitness report. And although the essence of the message is that she died accidentally (an envious sliver broke) and not as a suicide,thus allowing burial in hallowed ground, a twentieth century detective with a suspicious mind would ask himself who the last person was to see the deceased alive, and might take the circumstantiality of the report as a hint of guilt. And consider the breakthrough of unconscious preoccupations: *-his hoar leaves in the glassy stream-*, *long purples, that liberal shepherds give a grosser name*, the *envious sliver*. I am drawn to the conclusion that in the Queen's response - *Drown'd, drown'd* - to Laertes' exclamation: *alas, then she is drown'd!* she is changing the mood of the statement to * has been drowned*. Indeed the gravediggers in the next scene, while not giving credence to any accident theory, expound at length on the transitive aspect of the verb *to drown*. Now I can't say if any of the foregoing was in the production I saw other than the bloody shift and the words. Given the opportunity I might be tempted to pay the price of a ticket to see if it was there in glance, movement or intonation. The author isn't around to to tell us if this was yet another ambiguity that he knowingly threw into the broth - a more subtle, subliminal bit of spice- a piece of his art, or, like the Ophelia-Hamlet bedding to the framers of the question, a figment of my imagination. My intial reaction to the questioners that sparked the Hamlet-Ophelia discussion was quite negative, but the fact is that they have sparked what has been for me a stimulating interchange, and for that I thank them. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 12:04:03 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0120 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0120. Thursday, 15 February 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 1996 22:05:55 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0116 Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Thursday, 15 Feb 1996 00:27:01 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0116 Re: Funeral Elegy (3) From: David Schalkwyk Date: Thursday, 15 Feb 1996 13:42:01 SAST-2 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0112 Re: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 1996 22:05:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0116 Re: Funeral Elegy Regarding my conversations with Dave Kathman about the printing and publication of *A Funeral Elegy,* I found today that Eld used only his name on STC 21028 (*art of iugling*) which had been entered by T. Bushell on Jan. 16, 1612, and on STC 19823 (*petite palace*) which had been entered by F. Burton on March 11, 1605. I suspect -- only suspect -- that Eld got the rights to these books, but the transfer is not recorded in the Stationers Register (to my knowledge -- and I did check). When Thorpe entered *A funerall Elegye* on 13 February 1612, it was entered as "A booke to be printed when it is further aucthorised" (Arber 3.477). As Kenneth Palmer commented about a similar entry for Shakespeare's *T&C*, "It is not clear whose authority might have been required" (Arden ed. 1). Greg (*Some Aspects*) thinks the word "authorized" refers to "an ecclesiastical imprimatur" (41), but that seems odd in the two contexts cited. Why would *T&C* need ecclesiatical approval? It should have been approved by the Master of the Revels. If Thorpe were acting as Shakespeare's agent, why would he need further authorization? And who was to do the authorizing? Why is this argument important to our knowledge of Shakespeare? Well, if we conclude that Thorpe did act as Shakespeare's agent in the case of the FE, then it seems likely that he was acting as his agent in the case of the sonnets. If this is true, then Eld's printing of the sonnets was authorized by Shakespeare -- and we can assume that Shakespeare had the chance to proofread them. And if this is true, then what we now take for mistakes in the text, did not appear so to Shakespeare -- or he was a perfectly lousy proofreader -- or out of town while the sonnets were aprinting -- or he needed new glasses. Take your choice. Obviously, there are other issues at stake. But I leave those for others to clarify. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Thursday, 15 Feb 1996 00:27:01 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0116 Re: Funeral Elegy No time for a full reply, but here are a few of my reactions in the Funeral Elegy discussion: To Richard Kennedy: First of all, in the passage Mr. Kennedy responded to I was quoting Don Foster, who has read many more Elizabethan funeral elegies than I have and knows much more about the subject. That being said, I should clarify that when I spoke of the "literary context" of the Elegy, I was talking about published funeral elegies for real people who had died (and so was Don Foster in the quoted passage). Such elegies tended to be rather somber and repetitive affairs, abounding in cliches, and even poets who were elsewhere capable of beautiful poetry tended to drone on excessively when memorializing a dead celebrity in print. None of Mr. Kennedy's examples are from elegies for real people, and so aren't directly relevant to the point I was making. That excerpt from Bussy D'Ambois is nice, I agree, but I have Chapman's elegy for Prince Henry in front of me, and it's rough sledding in comparison. It opens: If ever adverse influence envied The glory of our Lands, or took a pride To trample on our height; or in the eye Struck all the pomp of Principality, Now it hath done so; oh, if ever Heaven, Made with the earth his angry reckoning even, Now it hath done so. Ever, ever be Admired, and fear'd that Triple Majesty... It goes on at great and repetitive length for 656 lines, longer than W.S.'s Elegy. My point is that the Elegy was not written in a literary vacuum, and the tendency for elegies of this type to be somber and dreary is one factor that should at least be considered when we're discussing the poem. 2) To Stephanie Hughes: Ms. Hughes asks for a poem undoubtedly by Shakespeare that is half as bad as the Funeral Elegy. One problem here is that many critics have tended to doubt Shakespeare's authorship of works which they deem not "good enough" to be by him -- A Lover's Complaint, The Two Noble Kinsmen, Titus Andronicus, the Henry VI plays, etc. Ms. Hughes earlier said that even the best scholarship can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, the implication being that Shakespeare only wrote silk purses. I don't want to get into a big discussion of this right now (maybe later), but one question here is whether Shakespeare was capable of being mediocre. I think anyone would agree that everything Shakespeare wrote was not of equal quality; not everything can be Hamlet or the Sonnets. Most people find the Funeral Elegy mediocre on first (or second or third) reading, and it's not an easy poem under any circumstances. One of the points I've been trying to make is that given the circumstances of publication and the literary and historical context, the Elegy is not necessarily as bad as it might first seem. Some people may still be unwilling to accept it as Shakespeare's, and that's certainly their right. But I think that context is at least worth considering here. 3) To Simon Morgan-Russell, who asks "what does it matter?": I'll leave to others discussion of this question in terms of attribution studies in general. In this specific case, the Funeral Elegy is a very personal poem, and if Shakespeare did write it, that fact has enormous biographical significance. 4) To Bill Godshalk: a) Bill's speculation that Eld had an informal agreement with Thorpe to assume the rights to the poem is just speculation, of course; there's no evidence for it, and I'm not aware of any evidence that this was done in other cases. If such evidence exists, I'd be interested in seeing it. b) When I said that printed books are more permanent than manuscripts, what I meant was that books are more likely to be preserved (in libraries, whether personal or institutional), on top of the greater number of copies of a printed book. Yes, there are manuscripts from that era, but there are many more printed texts. c) Absent personal papers and financial records of printers like Thomas Thorpe, we can't know for sure how their finances worked. But I think it would be reasonable to assume that Thorpe paid a fee to his printers, and also that he paid some sort of rent to the booksellers who sold his books, with the revenue from those books going into his pocket. If a book were privately printed and paid for by the author, as Foster argues the Elegy probably was, that means the author would pay the fee to the printer, plus maybe any distribution costs. Thorpe would not make any money (unless the author paid him something for his troubles), but he would retain the rights to reprint the work in the future. d) Bill asks why Shakespeare wouldn't go directly to Eld. Well, maybe he didn't know him personally; the two Shakespeare works Eld printed were both for other publishers (Troilus and Cressida for Richard Bonion and Henry Walley, the Sonnets for Thorpe). Thorpe, on the other hand, was apparently well-connected to the London theater world: he printed numerous works by Ben Jonson, George Chapman, and John Marston, for most of which there is evidence of close authorial involvement. Though Thorpe was just a "middle-man", sometimes middle-men can be very useful. e) As for where I'm getting my info on Thorpe, some is from Don Foster's book, and some more is from Don's 1987 PMLA article "Master W.H., R.I.P." and Katherine Duncan-Jones' 1983 article in the Review of English Studies, "Was the 1609 Shake-speares Sonnets Really Unauthorized?", all of which I happened to have lying around. I see this post has turned longer than I expected. Ah well. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Schalkwyk Date: Thursday, 15 Feb 1996 13:42:01 SAST-2 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0112 Re: Funeral Elegy In the light of the unfavourable comparison between FE and similar poems by Chapman and Davies, could it be that, in contrast to the stirring rhetoric of the Chapmamn, the poem by "WS" enacts the disparagement of such rhetoric by the poet of the Sonnets? If the latter laments the enfeeblement of his own style -- the "poverty" that his "muse brings forth" -- by "proud full sail" of the rival poet's "great verse", then is it not possible that the style and tone of FE puts into practice the revulsion from rhetorical show expressed, but paradoxically not enacted, in the Sonnets? It may be for the intriguing light that FE might cast on the Sonnets, as Lars Engle has suggested, that we might like to believe that `WS' is William Shakespeare. But what the controversy has certainly shown is how powerful a symbol of aesthetic perfection Shakespeare remains: how readily we will refuse even to entertain the possibility of the attribution purely on the grounds that it is, to some of us, a very bad poem. It's bad, so it can't possibly be Shakespeare's. But why not? That refusal tells us a lot about the `discipline' and its deepest assumptions. Could the debate about FE not reveal more fully the irony of the following lines: Why is my verse so barren of new pride? So far from variation or quick change? Why with the time do I not glance aside To new-found methods and to compounds strange? Why write I still all one, ever the same, And keep invention in a noted weed, That every word doth almost tell my name Showing their birth, and where they did proceed? Why, indeed? David Schalkwyk University of Cape Town ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 12:10:44 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0121 Parodies Found; Hamlet in Performance/Pennington Book Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0121. Thursday, 15 February 1996. (1) From: Fran Teague Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 96 16:37:44 EST Subj: Parodies Found (2) From: Mark Fisher Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 1996 12:47:23 +0000 Subj: Hamlet in performance/Pennington book (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 96 16:37:44 EST Subject: Parodies Found For any SHAKSPER-subscribers in the Houston area, there will be a chance to see a wonderful parody. We just received an announcement of "the ninth quadrennial production of HELLO HAMLET, a musical tragedy in too many acts." It runs March 21-23 and 27-29 at Wiess College of Rice University. I have happy memories of this one and would love to know if it's still as good as I remember its being. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Fisher Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 1996 12:47:23 +0000 Subject: Hamlet in performance/Pennington book Here's the full text of an article I wrote for The Herald (Glasgow) which was published in edited form on 13 February. It's a combined review of Michael Pennington's *Hamlet: A User's Guide* and an interview with Tom McGovern who played Hamlet at the Royal Lyceum, Edinburgh last year: WHENEVER we put together kitchen units, wire up a hi-fi or load up a new computer programme, we have no hesitation in turning to the manual for help. Yet when you put together a production of a play, you're left to piece the bits together pretty much by yourself. Even when that play is one of the most frequently performed works in the English language - as is the case with Hamlet - there is little opportunity for one performer to pass on those useful tips about how the thing works, what the best way to treat it is and what to do when the warrantee runs out. True, there are endless shelf-loads of academic treatises on the work of Shakespeare, and Hamlet in particular, but your average actor, operating from the heart not the head, tends to be suspicious of anything born in the privacy of the study instead of the limelight of the stage. Very belatedly the world of drama studies has come to realise that scripts need to be understood in terms of performance not in terms of literature, but it is still the case that the bulk of an actor's learning is done through stage experience not through solitary study. There is, however, a middle line and it is one that actor Michael Pennington has struck in his book, Hamlet: A User's Guide, published last week. Here is just such a manual to help you piece together the nuts and bolts of Shakespeare's tragedy, written not from the airy perspective of a university professor, but the practical viewpoint of a performer who has appeared in Hamlet five times, twice in the lead role. He knows it inside out. And he knows it in a way that is, for all his perceptivity and insight, fundamentally down-to-earth. This is an artisan's analysis - certainly not above warning the prospective director against cutting a scene in case he should lose its emotional resonance, but just as likely to recommend a cut for the pragmatic reason that without it the show will run to half-past eleven. In short, it's something any actor - and indeed any audience - could learn from, achieving the considerable feat of sharing a lucid and practical understanding of the play without imposing a directorial vision or standing in the way of new imaginative interpretations. He does this with a clear-sighted admiration for Shakespeare, celebrating the playwright for his unerring dramatic instinct even while he picks apart the logical inconsistencies of the plot. Take this on Gertrude's speech after the death of Ophelia: "The hoary old question - why didn't she save her instead of watching her drown? - is best left in the Green Room, since we know by now that Shakespeare will sacrifice anything for a good speech. A modern playwright wouldn't get away with it." Pennington isn't above the quest for knowledge - on the contrary, his book is rich in historical facts and background information - and he has managed, despite his familiarity, to remain sensitive to and enthusiastic about Shakespeare's innovations, like the unexpected positioning of the coarse grave-digging scene immediately after the suicide of Ophelia. His reference points are wide - he gets the Oresteia and the Lion King into a single sentence - and his advice is sound - "These are beautiful lines that should not be spoken beautifully," he warns at one point. And what comes across most forcefully is just how much the character of Hamlet affects the actor who plays him. Of course, the appeal of the play is widespread. Even now, Robert Lepage is developing a one-man version in Quebec, Peter Brook is staging an experimental fragmentation in Paris, and Richard Demarco is drawing up plans to stage it on the Edinburgh Fringe. Pennington's book follows only a matter of months after Steven Berkoff's I Am Hamlet (Faber and Faber) and Anthony B. Dawson's Shakespeare in Performance: Hamlet (Manchester University Press), which, oddly enough, uses the same RSC picture of Michael Pennington, circa 1980, on the front. But it is the actor in that great central role who is ensnared more than anyone by this play. Like Pennington says, "it changes you for good, and for the better". That's certainly a sentiment confirmed by Scotland's most recent Hamlet, Tom McGovern, who played the Dane in the fast-paced Edinburgh Royal Lyceum production last autumn. When he talks about the character now, he can't help dropping into the past tense - Hamlet was McGovern's best pal, someone killed him last December and it hurts. He's over the worst of the mourning now, but for three or four weeks he knows he was unbearable to live with. The 32-year-old actor, who has taken big roles like Arturo Ui and Dr Faustus in his stride, has never known a part like it. "From the day I was asked to do it, my life wasn't the same," he says. "I just couldn't get him out of my head. I had copies anywhere I might be - at my mother's, my mother-in-law's, my sister in law's. It was like being given something to take care of. I cared so much about him, I felt more like a friend of his even before I started rehearsals. In drama school you're always talking about degrees of getting away from yourself, and I think it's about as close as I ever got to being another person." Finding parallels with the early death of his own father, McGovern found himself closely identifying with Hamlet's unresolved relationship with the old king. And from before rehearsals began, the part crept its way into all aspects of his life. "It manages to envelop you even in your dreams," he says. "My dreams were phenomenal prior to it, during it, and after. I was having dreams about my father being in it as the ghost! My wife said I was often reciting in my sleep. I had one awful dream where I was doing 'To be or not to be,' and someone in the audience started laughing, I just lay down on the stage and I woke up crying." As many actors have testified, the part takes you far beyond personal identification, and by the time it came to returning home to Glasgow, McGovern had yet to appreciate just how much Hamlet had become an obsession. "I felt like I'd lost someone," he says. "I had a bit of a rough time with my wife when I got home, because it was like someone had died; you had all the memories and it had meant so much to me for months of my life. I was impossible to live with and I had to apologise to my wife." It's a continual source of fascination that this one role, unlike any other, can so thoroughly absorb an actor. Quite how it could be so is a mystery whose answer must lie somewhere in the enigmatic character of Shakespeare himself, a man Pennington describes not only as "a gifted tart, scraping a theatrical buck," but also as a writer who "anticipated both Samuel Beckett and bepop". All life is in Hamlet, and a considerable amount of it finds its way into Pennington's wise and entertaining book. Hamlet: A User's Guide is published by Nick Hern Books (=A318.99). Mark Fisher (fisher@easynet.co,uk) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 12:19:45 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0122 Re: John Bulwer; The KJV Bible Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0122. Thursday, 15 February 1996. (1) From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 1996 12:43:15 -0500 Subj: Q: John Bulwer (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 1996 19:54:07 -0800 Subj: The KJV Bible (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 1996 12:43:15 -0500 Subject: Q: John Bulwer Katherine Rowe asked: >Can anyone recommend strong critical essays on John Bulwer (of Chirologia, >Anthropometamorphosis, etc.) or his work? By all means look at Joseph R. Roach's The Player's Passion. Cary (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 14 Feb 1996 19:54:07 -0800 Subject: The KJV Bible Why couldn't Shakespeare have had a hand in the making of the KJV? He was retired, at leisure, and who else was so excellent a writer? Besides, the job has a great mystery about it, and perhaps some- thing is to be discovered here. It certainly seems that the game's afoot. Here's something I wrote several years ago. SOME NAMELESS SKILL Queen Elizabeth died in March, 1603, and in the month of January, 1604, King James commanded a new revision of the Holy Bible to be written, and that summer he named 54 clerics and scholars to bring about the work, the number to be added to as necessary. After an unexplained delay of about 3 years, work was begun in earnest in 1607, the translators being divided into 6 groups based at Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster. The translation of the King James Bible was finished in 1610 and put through the press and published in 1611, acclaimed ever since to be the most beautiful English prose in all our literature. We know practically nothing about how these 54 men worked at this prodigious labor. We might expect that someone would have kept notes of the many conferences held during those several years, but no notice has been left to us, nor do we have any correspondence between the groups. Two or three small and slight anecdotes have been told, second-hand stories of the smallest importance if we were to understand how this magnificent work was achieved. Nor is there a word left to us by the translators themselves, neither in diary nor in letter, nor yet in attic or archive has been found a jot of information to tell us how these 54 men set themselves to the task. One man alone left some fragments of linguistic quibbles, but that is all. And not a single translator has been remembered in epitaph for his part in this singular labor, nor was there revel, nor reception by the crown, nor barely a murmur when the work was done. It's almost spooky, as if ghosts had been employed by King James. We know nothing about how these men settled the style and searched out the poetry they left us, the grace of the Gospels, the Song of Solomon, the Psalms, and the soul of the Prophets. From the beginning of their labor to the end, it seems that a shroud of silence was thrown over all. "Direct evidence on the subject there is none," so wrote F.H.A. Scrivener in THE AUTHORIZED EDITION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE, 1910. "For never was a great enterprise like the production of our Authorized Version carried out with less knowledge handed down to posterity of the labourers, their method and order of working." It is strange also that King James paid not a pound of gold to support these men through the years of their great study and travail, nor did he repay them by mention when this gigantic effort was laid to the press, nor did he pay the printers the cost of the printing. But at last was published the result of this invisible effort, a book that ranks in the top ten you take to a desert island, there on a bamboo bookshelf to rest beside the poetry and plays of Shakespeare. And it is a wonder--some say it is a miracle--that a 54 man committee, as it were, could construct such a beautiful and lofty tower to God, and not fall a-babbling and a-scattering of words amongst themselves. ******** The English Bible--a book which if everything else in our language should perish, would alone suffice to show the whole extent of its beauty and power T.B. Macaulay, --On John Dryden, 1828 The plays of Shakespeare and the English Bible are, and ever will be, the twin monuments not merely of their own period, but of the perfection of English, the complete expression of the literary capacities of the language.... George Saintsbury, --History of Elizabethan Literature, 1887 ...It is probably the most beautiful piece of writing in all the literature of the world. Its English is extraordinarily simple, pure, eloquent, and lovely. It is a mine of lordly and imcomparable poetry, at once the most stirring and the most touching ever heard of. H.L. Mencken, quoted in Paine (below) The Authorized Version is a miracle and a landmark. Its felicities are manifold, its music has entered into the very blood and marrow of English thought and speech... Robinson, H. Wheeler, -- The Bible in its Ancient and English Versions, 1940 For the Biblical style is characterized not merely by homely vigour and pithiness of phrase, but also by a singular nobility of diction and by a rhythmic quality which is, I think, unrivalled in its beauty. Lowes, John Livingston, --Essays in Appreciation, 1936 ...and it is curious that such an unmatched result should have been the result of labours thus combined, and not, as far as is known, controlled by any one guiding spirit. ...no known translator under James has left anything which at all equals in strictly literary merit the Authorized Version. Saintsbury, George, op.cit. How did this come to be? How explain that sixty or more men, none a genius, none even as great a writer as Marlowe or Ben Jonson, together produced writing to be compared with (and confused with) the words of Shakespeare? Paine, Gustavus S., --The Learned Men, 1959 ...that a committee of forty-seven should have captured a rhythm so personal, so constant, that our Bible has the voice of one author speaking through its many mouths; that is a wonder before which I can only stand humble and aghast. Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, quoted in Opfell (below). It is a miracle and a mystery, since group writing seldom achieves great heights. Individual writings of the committeemen show no trace of the magnificent style... Opfell, Olga S. --The King James Bible Translators, 1982 In their general effect, the six sections of the 1611 Bible show a remarkable uniformity of style, considering that in the English backgrounds of each there were differences not only between the sections, but also within each section. Butterworth, Charles C. --The Literary Lineage of the King James Bible, 1971 To know that the Bible words were beyond the choosing of the best of them, we have only to look at their individual writing. Because he was the final critic who looked for flaws and smoothed out the whole translation, there is perhaps more of Dr. Miles Smith in the King James version than of any other man. Some critics said that his own style was heavy, involved, rough. Thomas Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, with Miles Smith, at the end revised all that the rest had done. We may well ask how his style fitted him to burnish the whole final draft, but if we use this criterion we may ask in vain. Bishop Bilson was for the most part a dull writer. Paine, Gustavus S., op.cit. The Authorized Version, setting a seal on all, set a seal on our national style, thinking and speaking. It has cadences homely and sublime, yet so harmonises them that the voice is always one. Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, --On the Art of Writing,1914. Perhaps the greatest of literary mysteries lies in the unanswered question of how fifty-four translators managed to infuse their work with a unity of effect which seems the result of one inspired imagination. The mystery will never be solved. Chase, Mary Ellen, --The Bible and the Common Reader, 1960 ...all is clear, correct, lucid, happy, awaking continual admiration by the rhythmic beauty of the periods, the instinctive art with which the style rises and falls with the subject, the skilful surmounting of the difficulties the most real, the diligence with which almost all which was happiest in prededing translations has been retained and embodied in the present; the constant solemnity and seriousness which, by some nameless skill, is made to rest on all. Trench, Richard Chenevix, --On the Authorized Version of the New Testament, 1858 *** If there was a singular author of the KJV (besides God), and I were to round up the usual suspects, I'd visit Shakespeare and ask him his alibi. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 10:05:09 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0123 The Acting Company's *H5* Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0123. Monday, 19 February 1996. From: Kay Pilzer Date: Thursday, 15 Feb 1996 18:16:08 -0600 (CST) Subject: Acting Co.'s *HV* Since I enjoy other SHAKSPERians' accounts of performances they see, I'm sending this description of the *HV*, directed by Mary Lou Rosato, being toured by The Acting Company, which performed here at Vanderbilt Feb. 10. Since they're touring widely, I expect other list members will have the chance to see this production. I hope you do (I found it marvelously provocative) and that you add your comments to mine. Rosato sets the play in a tavern some years after the setting of the play. The mood is that of blue-collar friends gathering on Crispian's Day to recount their adventures to each other before a parade. From the cast list I see that many characters have a name from *HV*, Pistol (now a pawn broker), Fluellen (an accountant), and so on, but this was not something I realized as I watched it. The play opens with the opening of the tavern and the players bounding in bringing props and costumes, including a large, wheeled laundry basket marked "Crispin Day Stuff." Out of this come the costumes which the characters don while performing -- for each other as much as for the audience -- the story of the great war. (The epigram for their production is King Henry's words before Agincourt in IV.iii. about making a story out of their scars and the war.) This setting plays with the elements of history making implicit in Shakespeare's play, and, in their trading the crown and robe about to everyone regardless of gender or race, the "making" of kings (also implicit in Shakespeare's highlighting of Prince Hal's performance as king). The chorus becomes a chorus (the entire cast is always on stage), mood changes are signalled by choruses of war songs ("White Cliffs of Dover," etc.), and Katherine's English lesson takes on new relevance as it occurs during a dance during which her partner keeps groping at her. They use Shakespeare's words with little abridgement, but their shifting the role of HV around, sometimes by lot, once by coersion, and their explicit linking of tavern violence to patriotic violence makes a fascinating statement about the ways society makes kings and pertetuates war. The most striking moment for me (and for my undergrad students -- many of whom found the production fairly confusing, by the way, despite my mistressful teaching of the play the weeks before. Ah well...) came when a woman, as HV, makes that horrible speech outside the gates of Harfleur. This is staged so that while facing the theatre audience, she mimes calling her conditions up to the governor on the walls. As she continues the conditions, each progressively more hideous (this is the spiked baby, raped daughter speech), her own soldier looks at her questioningly. By the time she ends, she can play the part no longer and takes off the crown, handing it to an unwilling fellow next to her. I saw the moment as her enacting the horror she feels at realizing that war puts those words into a person's mouth -- and even more horror at realizing that she could say them. The play ends with the group performing the Epilogue sometimes in chorus, sometimes with individuals taking lines. Their work here and throughout the production underscores in interesting ways Shakespeare's own words "In little room confining mighty men" (the set looks cramped and is never changed), and the polyvocal quality of Shakespeare's play that seems, simultaneously, to praise and to question the institutions of kings and wars. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 10:19:05 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0124 Re: Hamlet in Performance/Pennington Book; Parodies Found Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0124. Monday, 19 February 1996. (1) From: David R. Maier Date: Thursday, 15 Feb 1996 16:51:16 -0800 Subj: Re: Hamlet in performance/Pennington book (2) From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Thursday, 15 Feb 1996 22:56:12 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Parodies Found; Hamlet in Performance/Pennington Book (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David R. Maier Date: Thursday, 15 Feb 1996 16:51:16 -0800 Subject: Re: Hamlet in performance/Pennington book I have checked all of my local sources and no one has any idea how to get a copy of this book, it being so newly published. Does anyone have any suggestions who might have this book in stock in the States or how to order it from the publisher? David Maier dmaier@orednet.org (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Thursday, 15 Feb 1996 22:56:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Parodies Found; Hamlet in Performance/Pennington Book Dear SHAKSPERians, I would appreciate any information anyone might be able to supply about HELLO HAMLET, the (in)famous parody mentioned in a recent posting by Fran Teague. I'd be particularly grateful for information about getting a script. Feel free to respond to me at my e-mail address. Cheers, and thanks, Doug Lanier DML3@christa.unh.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 10:34:48 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0125 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Character Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0125. Monday, 19 February 1996. (1) From: Daniel M Larner Date: Thursday, 15 Feb 1996 17:49:56 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0114 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Character (2) From: Florence Amit Date: Friday, 16 Feb 1996 11:56:57 +0200 Subj: Re: Hamlet and Ophelia (3) From: Surajit Bose Date: Saturday, 17 Feb 1996 19:34:22 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0114 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Character (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel M Larner Date: Thursday, 15 Feb 1996 17:49:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0114 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Character Yu Jin Ko strikes a resonant chord, I think, when he points out that _Hamlet_ is clearly concerned with the question of who or what the whole person is underneath the veil of appearances. The theoretical debate, which tries to determine in the abstract whether or not we are dealing with real persons, fragmental representations, or partial signifyers, utterly misses the point of useable criticism and fails to inform us either about the playable essence of a character, or about the characters role in a rich conception of the action. Plays which enjoy long life on the stage generally impress us with the very roundness, richness and complexity that is exhilarating, because it illuminates and enriches the texture of our own lives. That's also why tragedy isn't depressing. It's remarkable how often (not always--but how often) deconstructive and post-structuralist species of analysis, or critical dispositions, leave plays in a fine pile of critical dust in front of us, forgetting that the first responsibility of good criticism is preserve and illuminate the whole. Daniel Larner (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Florence Amit Date: Friday, 16 Feb 1996 11:56:57 +0200 Subject: Re: Hamlet and Ophelia Shirley Kagan writes, >If I'm not mistaken, a nunnery has the double meaning of brothel, certainly a >place where Ophelia might go having lost her virginity and being unwed. Also, >Hamlet refers to "nothing" being a fair thought to lie between a maid's legs. >Again, a pun, since "nothing" may refer to the female genetalia, thus making >the little conversation between Hamlet and Ophelia one that could only be >shared by lovers. Finally, although the innocence of Ophelia may be necessary >from a Lutheran point of view, Shakespeare was not writing Hamlet for a >Lutheran audience. (1) The many connotations for "nunnery" need or need not have been in Hamlet's mind, although they are obviously in the mind of this well- read scholar. I do not cancel out the possibility that Hamlet would be thinking brothel as well as convent. The logic of his rhetoric is for convent. His state of mind is for brothel, but the result of his curse, the action, signifies a nunnery where none live. (2) Obviously Ophelia is embarrassed over her precipitant refusal of Hamlet's desire to lay his head in her lap and not his whole body. So she says "nothing" as if to cancel out that bawdiness even though it was a denial. The quick Hamlet takes up the image that she wants disregarded. Their continuing discourse is proper for this reading and also Hamlet speaks of a "thought" with a "maid". (3) The audience, any audience, is important for an artist, to be sure, but if he would always be consulting it, it would be disatrous to his creativity. One only has to think of the vascillations that Dickens suffered. The Luthern, or rather the messianic foundation that is present in "Hamlet" is like a directional outline for a sculptur. When you view the completed object in mass with its light and shade you do not need to know that the shape was inspired by a particular bone. For my part I am grateful for the certainty I feel when I ascertain the solidity of "Hamlet's" foundations even when I do not mention them in criticism, which is usual. Scott Shepherd writes, >Sorry if it makes nonsense of Ophelia's function in the rest of the play, but >the song she sings in her mental derangement makes the facts clear--not only >that she and Hamlet had sex, but that they did it in his bed, and that he >seduced her with a pledge of marriage: > Quoth she before you tumbled me you promised me to wed > He answers > So would I a done by yonder sun an thou hadst not come to my bed >Another informative song lyric lets us know that Polonius was a Jew. Hamlet >calls him a "judge of Israel." This helps explain the controversy over >Ophelia's Christian burial. It's surprising that commentators have been so >silent about this. (1) I do not think any judge even a play judge would credit the testimony of a raving mad-woman. Does she sing from her own experiences; from her fantasies; from some body else's fantasies; from ballads remembered? (2) Yepthah, who Polonius is compared to, is the judge, in the Biblical book of Judges that sacrifices his daughter for a vow. To understand from that that Polonius is a Jew is to say that Hamlet is a Greek because he compares himself to Hercules. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Surajit Bose Date: Saturday, 17 Feb 1996 19:34:22 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0114 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Character In her closely-reasoned and beautifully balanced assessment of the debate around the "Did Ham and Ophie do it?" question, Yu Jin Ko writes: >we should make a distinction between whether a play raises a certain question >and whether it can answer it. Those who suggest that the question of Ophelia's >chastity is irrelevant tend to work rather circularly: what's unanswerable is >so because of its general irrelevance. I don't think that anyone here believes this question is irrelevant; if we did, we would not be participating in this debate. I do believe, however, that the question _is_ unanswerable; or at least, unanswerable until we figure out the _terms_ of the question. So many people have tried answering it in so many different ways over the past couple weeks alone: yes, Hamlet did seduce Ophelia, because her songs prove it; no, he did not, because Luther would never sanction it; actually it was Claudius who raped Ophelia, and Hamlet is either innocent or irrelevant (I'm not clear which), etc. The last solution is interesting, in that we now have not only a Hamlet jealous of Claudius (_pace_ Ernest Jones), but also a Gertrude jealous of Ophelia. Neat. But the range and variety of the answers leads me to wonder about the question itself; what counts as evidence that would allow one to support an answer to that question? Perhaps the evidence can be found in the words on the page? What else is there? But several posts, including the ones from Hardy Cook and Steve Urkowitz, have pointed out that those words aren't stable; Ophelia's songs don't mean one thing and one thing alone, but take on different valences depending on who is presented as the addressee. And different versions of the text present us with different addressees. I would argue that even if we had only one text of _Hamlet_ (as is the case with _Macbeth_, where F is the only source), the words would still be unstable. What directors and critics exploit, in fact, is precisely the instability of the words. The words present the potential for an infinite number of realizations in performance and criticism. If there were just one stable, realizable interpretation possible of the words on the page, then both theater folks and academic types would have gone out of biz long ago. On the other hand, at least intuitively, we all know that every interpretation is not as equally valid as every other interpretation. And the degree of validity varies from context to context. Let me take an example. Suppose I say, drawing upon Scott Shepherd's brilliant insight that "Hamlet has text not only with Ophelia but just about everyone else in the play," that all Hamlet's problems were the result of homosexual molestation he suffered as a little boy at the hands of Yorick. If I wrote this up as an academic essay, _Shakespeare Quarterly_ would never publish it and I'd never make tenure. A _performance_ of the play that tried to show this would be risky, and I think rather hard to pull off, but perhaps possible. If I were to write a _novel_ about Hamlet that included this version, however, it would clearly be valid. Random House would publish it, Mel Gibson would star in the movie of the novel (with Harvey Keitel as Yorick, and a piano playing trashy new age air puddings in the background during the seduction scene), and I'd make millions. Which last leads me to two observations: one, I'm evidently in the wrong business here; and two, I think Tom Stoppard had the whole thing figured out ages ago. But seriously folks. What I'm trying to get at is: from this it follows that the question we started out with needs clarification. We can no longer ask "Did Ham and Ophie do it?" without asking about what the _question_ itself means. Who's asking, and why? What are the stakes involved in the answer? Directors, teachers, and novelists have different stakes. There can't be a universal answer that satisfies all comers and is true for all time. Sad but true. Michael Saenger's post points to this. So, since I'm a teacher, historian, and critic (albeit a johnny-come-lately at all three), not a novelist or a director, I see my job as trying to figure out what the question itself means. More precisely, I want to know about the conditions of possibility of the question. What allows us to _ask_ the question, "Did Ham and Ophie do it," and to see the question as meaningful? The answer has to be found in words on the page of the text(s) of _Hamlet_; I have nothing _besides_ the words on the page--there is nothing outside the text, except perhaps other words on other pages. Even if someone were to point out that the question seems meaningful only to me, the question would still be about the relationship I have to the words on the page of _Hamlet_. So I'm driven to the kinds of inquiry I outlined in my first post on this topic: viz., stage conditions, printing conditions, the nature of subjectivity, and above all the nature of language. All these strike me as being crucially important questions. I don't pretend to have the answers, and I'm not suggesting that everybody should address these questions. I'm admitting that _given my stakes_, these are my questions. Which brings me back to Yu Jin Ko. She writes: >Surely one can safely say that the play investigates the >problematic relationship between outward show and that within Absolutely. But as she herself points out, to say that the play poses a question about the relationship between performance and subjectivity is not to say that the question gets answered in the play. And there's a crucial difference, elided by Professor Ko, between the first question, "Did Hamlet and Ophelia do it?" and the second, "How come the actions and words of Hamlet and/or Ophelia [outward show] allow us to wonder about their personalities and private histories [that within]? Even to the point of being able to ask whether they did it? I.e., how do words on the page, which is all that _Hamlet_ is, work magic?" The first question begs the second. It responds to the magic of the words, but doesn't examine how the magic trick is worked. I'm at a loss to understand why Professor Ko should see the movement from the first question to the second as a "self-obsessed indulgence": >In dismissing [Ophelia's] characterological complexity, >however, readers engage in a kind of laziness that in this play is associated >with a moral laxity particular to Hamlet: engrossed in his subjectivity, in his >conviction of his autonomous illegibility, he casually pins down others with >formulated phrases, thus denying subjectivity to others. It is a short step >from Hamlet to the self-obsessed indulgences that blind a Childe Harolde to the >complex reality of others. The true Mousetrap of _Hamlet_ is the prison of >Hamlet's mind -- the trap that readers who dismiss hints of illegible >complexity in others find themselves in. Mirroring the slippage between the two questions I pointed out earlier, here too there is a slippage in Professor Ko's argument between Hamlet's actions as a dramatic character and his putative "subjectivity." As far as I can tell, nobody has dismissed Ophelia as irrelevant; nobody has suggested that Hamlet is the only person to concentrate on; nobody has said that he is the only one with "illegible complexity." Au contraire. What I am trying to decipher, using what Stephanie Jed has called paleographic tools, is the illegibility that extends from Hamlet to _Hamlet_. Or, to switch metaphors: Yes, the play is a mousetrap; let's see how it works, let's figure out the technology behind the play's words, so we can imagine a way out of the trap. Surajit A. Bose Department of English University of Notre Dame ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 10:37:56 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0126 CFP: LITERATURE AND ETHICS Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0126. Monday, 19 February 1996. From: Dominic Rainsford Date: Friday, 16 Feb 1996 09:57:52 +0000 Subject: Call for Papers ********************************************************************** ************************** CALL FOR PAPERS *************************** ********************************************************************** LITERATURE AND ETHICS An International Conference University of Wales, Aberystwyth, 4-7 July 1996 '[T]he word "ethics" seems to have replaced "textuality" as the most charged term in the vocabulary of contemporary literary and cultural theory' (Steven Connor, TLS, 5 January 1996). Speakers to include: Steven Connor (Birkbeck College, London; *Postmodernist Culture*, *Theory and Cultural Value*), Simon Critchley (U of Essex; *The Ethics of Deconstruction*), Geoffrey Galt Harpham (Tulane U; *The Ascetic Imperative*, *Getting It Right*, "Ethics" in the new ed. of *Critical Terms for Literary Study*), Dan Jacobson (University College London; South African novelist and critic; *Adult Pleasures*), Laurence Lockridge (New York U; *The Ethics of Romanticism*), Ian MacKillop (U of Sheffield; recent biography of F R Leavis), Christopher Norris (U of Cardiff; *What's Wrong with Postmodernism*, *Truth and the Ethics of Criticism*, etc.), Leona Toker (Hebrew University of Jerusalem; *Commitment in Reflection: Essays in Literature and Moral Philosophy*), Ricardo Miguel Alfonso (U Rovira i Virgili), Anne Cubilie (Georgetown U), Philip Davis (U of Liverpool), Andrew Gibson (U of London, Royal Holloway), Juliet John (U of Liverpool), Willy Maley (Glasgow U), Norman Ravvin (U of Toronto), Ceri Sullivan (University of Wales, Bangor), Valeria Wagner (U de Geneve). Papers are invited from all points-of-view within this currently lively area of debate. You may wish directly to relate literary texts or theories to the discipline or discourses of moral philosophy, or you may wish to examine literary study, itself, in terms of engagement or social value. Sessions may include: Theories of Literature and Ethics; Ethics-Oriented Readings of Specific Texts; Ethics and Post-Structuralism; The State of Humanism; Ethics v. Politics; Ethical Criticism and Queer Theory; Literature, Ethics, and Feminism; Texts as Reflections of Moral Concern or Agents of Moral Change; The Author as Moralist; Criticism and Current Human Crises. Please send abstracts (200-300 words) by 15 March 1996 to the following address (to which any enquiries should also be sent): Dr Dominic Rainsford Department of English University of Wales Penglais ABERYSTWYTH Dyfed SY23 3DY UK Direct Line: (01970) 622213 / +44-1970-622213 Fax: (01970) 622530 / +44-1970-622530 E-mail: dcr@aber.ac.uk Abstracts may be submitted by mail, fax or e-mail. Extensive information about Aberystwyth, the University, and the Department of English is available on the World-Wide Web: http://www.aber.ac.uk/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 10:46:09 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0127 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0127. Monday, 19 February 1996. (1) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 16 Feb 1996 09:05:50 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0120 Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Friday, 16 Feb 1996 10:16:52 -0800 Subj: Funeral Elegy (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 16 Feb 1996 18:28:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0120 Re: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 16 Feb 1996 09:05:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0120 Re: Funeral Elegy David Kathman; I think we all know places in the plays where Shakespeare isn't at his best; the interminable and flowery speeches of lords, comic passages that no longer mean anything, and so forth, but there is an electrical energy that never goes long without surfacing, a verve, a sense of life, that marks his works as his, beyond any measurable indices of style or language. To explain the lifelessness and dullness of this piece by the fact that elegies in general were dull just won't do. What it does explain perhaps is that although he wrote in just about every poetic form, at least once, he never wrote an elegy. The man that did write this poem no doubt had read a great deal of Shakespeare and did his best to imitate him, but the magic in poetry doesn't come from using certain words, syntax, or forms, but from passion. Ultimately it may be passion that makes the difference between what is merely good and what is great. This poem isn't even good. Many lines don't scan. Show me one thing we know to be Shakespeare's that doesn't scan. I see a poor fool wearing his master's clothes. We may take him for his master at a distance, but on closer view the only ones who are fooled are those who see, not the man, but the clothes. Stephanie Hughes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Friday, 16 Feb 1996 10:16:52 -0800 Subject: Funeral Elegy David Kathman asks us to consider that snatch of Chapman's elegy for Prince Henry, which is almost as bad as the Elegy by W.S. But I would guess that it was bought and paid for. I haven't heard that Chapman was a chum of Prince Henry, or even knew the man. The lack of heart and plodding verse of Elegies for hire is more likely to come from indifference than grief. On the other hand, W.S. had in John Peter a "fast friend, soon lost". The poet confesses to the deceased that "I was thine", and that "my love was too remiss/ That had not made thee know how much I prized thee." W.S. was not merely employed for the job, "not hired, as heaven can witness in my soul," but was calling this Elegy from his heart, and in his verse he says, "I offer up to memory/ The value of my talent." In other words, he did the best he could, which is third-rate. I think that other poems might be called up to prove Foster's case that the Elegy is by Shakespeare, and the poem itself has certain turns of phrase that suggest Shakespeare, but that can be said of many other poems of the early 17th century, as Sir Edmund Chambers "The Shakspere Allusion Book" can witness. Those scholars who are lining up behind Foster and Shaxicon must somehow get it past their good sense that the man himself, Shakespeare, could write such bad stuff even in a daze, even to comply with some tradition of dreary elegies, and that he would willingly bind his imagination and tie his tongue to please the mourners and condone bad poetry out of respect for the dead. Shakespearean scholars are not expected to be judges of poetry, of course. They may be, but it is not required. Those who agree with a computer that the Elegy is by Shakespeare will be at some risk. The much-touted Shaxicon program is a thin branch to crawl upon, no matter how stout and strong Foster et al may praise it to be. Another computer program will say differently, and then where do you jump? For those who have but a slight poetic ear, let them ask someone who knows better of these things. Shaxicon hasn't the foggiest. The case seems to be this: W.S. loved his friend, John Peter, but because of the tradition that elegiac poetry must be dreary and without life, he took to metaphore and gave us a choice example of a poem in rigormortis. Other than the Shaxicon program, this seems to be Foster's argument. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 16 Feb 1996 18:28:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0120 Re: Funeral Elegy David Schalkwyk suggests an interesting answer to the problem of FE, one that has also been suggested by Richard Abrams in several (as yet unpublished) essays. FE is written in the plain style, and so we shouldn't search for a certain kind of imagery in its lines. So, in brief, the argument goes. But what about the "style" of FE? The "style" that we are talking about in FE is, if you will, micro-style, e.g., the way W.S. uses enjambement; the way W.S. uses "who" and "whom"; the way W.S. uses certain words; the way W.S. uses hendiadys. We aren't (necessarily) talking about "image clusters" or similarity to *Hamlet.* From the observation that FE (apparently) exhibits Shakespeare's micro-style comes a further question: May a poet uses this micro-style and yet write a not very interesting poem? The answer seems to be "yes." A great poem depends on something more than "style." (Use any definition you want of "great poem.") If Don Foster, using style analysis, has correctly identified the author of *Pimary Colors* (Joe Klein?), his identification of W.S. as William Shakespeare will receive a boost. I can't wait to see who steps forward as the author! Perhaps we will have to kidnap the literary agent to find out! To some of Dave Kathman's questions, I have already indicated answers. About Thorpe's relationship to Shakespeare, we can only speculate, but we should make sure that our speculations are supported by as much evidence as possible. From the evidence of the STC and Arber's transcript of the Stationers Register, Thorpe was not a major player -- not as active as Eld was. Thorpe seems to have been connected to several other stationers (e.g., William Aspley), and it's possible that he owned shares in several book stores. At one point early in his career (1604-1610), he seems to have been interested in publishing plays -- and entered plays by Chapman, Jonson, et al. But we do not know who he was representing when he entered these plays: the authors? the players? himself? When Thorpe entered FE provisionally -- waiting for authorization to print -- who was he representing? Let me suggest this scenario. Thorpe somehow got a copy of FE. Perhaps he bought the copy because he decided that he could make some money publishing it. He entered it provisionally because he felt that, for some reason, he needed "further" authorization. We will probably never know why he felt he had to wait, but he found that he could not obtain the authorization needed. He sold his rights in the book to Eld (in a deal not recorded in SR -- which isn't unusual), and Eld printed and published the poem -- with or without authorization. Eld wasn't afraid of paying fines; he had paid them before for printing what he should not have printed. (In this, Eld was not unusual; most of the better known printers were fined now and again for such things as illegally printing ballads.) It has been argued that no publisher or printer could have expected to make money from selling FE. But a cruise through the STC and the SR convinces me that publishers, booksellers, and printers seemed, in the late 16th century and early 17th century, to have expected to make money from the most unlikely printing ventures. Why not FE? Yours, Bill Godshalk University of Cincinnati ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 10:52:25 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0128 Q: Shakespearean Semiotics; Re: ACT's "The Tempest" Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0128. Monday, 19 February 1996. (1) From: Carmel Sammut Date: Friday, 16 Feb 1996 09:56:27 -0800 (PST) Subj: Shakespearean Semiotics (2) From: Katy Dickinson Date: Friday, 16 Feb 1996 10:01:11 -0800 Subj: ACT's "The Tempest" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carmel Sammut Date: Friday, 16 Feb 1996 09:56:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Shakespearean Semiotics Can anybody direct me to any studies done with regards Shakespeare and semiology, especially with regards Macbeth? I have managed to come across only a handful and am greatly interested to read more literature with this regards. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Katy Dickinson Date: Friday, 16 Feb 1996 10:01:11 -0800 Subject: ACT's "The Tempest" No, this is not a movie, it is a real-live stage play running in San Francisco at the American Conservatory Theater's newly-reopened Geary Theater. It is only running until 2/18 and tickets are scarce. However, I saw it this week and it is worth the trouble of tickets and travel. The staging is innovative and mostly effective, Miranda is superb (the best enactment for this part I have ever seen), Prospero is unusually human, and Ariel is excellent. Call 415-749-2ACT for information. Usually Miranda and Ferdinand (the love match for which Prospero arranged the tempest) seem so sappy and empty that their scenes have only slightly more to recommend them than does intermission. In this ACT production, Miranda actually seemed to me to be more a person. Her extreme enthusiasm after her first look at a man other than her Father and the bestial Caliban was charming. Another review of this production may be found in http://www.shakespeare.com/ Of course, the play itself may be found in: http://the-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/works.html Katy Dickinson (katy@eng.sun.com) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 08:54:47 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0129 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Character Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0129. Tuesday, 20 February 1996. (1) From: Rick Kincaid Date: Monday, 19 Feb 1996 10:44:41 Subj: Hamlet & Ophelia (2) From: David Lucking Date: Monday, 19 Feb 1996 19:27:11 +-100 Subj: To count or not to count? (3) From: Porter Jamison Date: Monday, 19 Feb 1996 18:34:18 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0125 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Character (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Kincaid Date: Monday, 19 Feb 1996 10:44:41 Subject: Hamlet & Ophelia A friend of mine had this very same discusion with the British actress Rose Marie Harris this summer while attending BADA (actually it was at a pub after classes). Not only had they been having intercourse, Ms. Harris contends, but Ophelia was pregnant by Hamlet. He knows this or figures it out during their scene together while the King and Polonius are listening, which gives "get thee to a nunnery" all the more meaning. AND, if Gertrude knows this, it makes her "There is a willow grows aslant..." more than just a flowery speech (pun intended), since the flowers mentioned were commonly used in Medieval speech when refering to fertility. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lucking Date: Monday, 19 Feb 1996 19:27:11 +-100 Subject: To count or not to count? To count or not to count? In response to a recent thread in which speculation concerning Hamlet's sexual activities has alternated with reminders that such conjectures belong to the same category as counting Lady Macbeth's fictive children, I offer the following observations for what they are worth. In an even more obvious way than other literary forms, drama is a medium in which the prescription that invisible children are not to be counted can only be applied up to a certain point. Even if the academic critic can hypnotize himself into thinking that one should never go outside the text in speaking about character, no one who actually performs or directs a play can operate on such a premise. The moment the actor playing a character dresses himself in a particular way, the moment he grimaces here or smiles there, the moment he leaves a significant pause in his delivery or lays the stress on this word rather than that -- the moment he acts, in a word -- he is going outside the text. Shakespeare does not tell us where significant pauses or word stresses or grimaces or smiles should come. Actors or directors construct characters on the basis of the textual information that is available to them, and act (or direct action) in a manner consistent with those characters. We as spectators judge that performance, among other things, on the basis of its consonance with the text, but also on the basis of our knowledge of human conduct, which is technically extrinsic to the text. We might talk about verisimiltude, or plausibility, or something else, but it is character we are speaking about all the same. Are we to say, then, that the actor's approach to the character, because it goes outside the text, is wholly non-critical? The academic critic might well say so, but perhaps by denying a continuity between his activity and those other cultural activities which are some way affined to his own, he is doing no more than sawing off the branch he is sitting on. Furthermore, even the purist critic might experience a certain difficulty in separating the textual character (that is, the sum total of speeches assigned to a given personage) from the composite image of that character he forms in his mind as he reads the work, an image which is necessarily going to be "more" than what Shakespeare put into the play. This, of course, quite aside from the fact that even the purest of purists has been exposed to non-textual influences (theatrical performances, films, early conditioning by schoolteachers who read Bradley in their spare time, etc.) which have doubtless conditioned his view of the characters and hence his reading of the text. The problem is complicated by the fact that the editors who establish the texts on which actors and critics and general readers perform their respective operations also apply criteria which may include their sense of the characters in the play and what is consistent with those characters. There is a respect, in other words, in which the text is a function of "character" and not vice versa. What the actor does explicitly, the responsive spectator or reader does implicitly. He is constantly adding to what the play explicitly supplies. Criteria of psychological plausibility, and even of moral acceptability, are criteria we apply instinctively, and they become critical judgements even if they don't have their origin in formal critical positions or their immediate sanction in the text. To cite an instance almost at random, how are we supposed to respond to Valentine's willingness in "Two Gentlemen" to hand over the woman he claims he loves to the man who has just attempted to rape her? The text is absolutely deadpan, and leaves it to us to make what sense of it that we can. And the only way we can make sense of the episode is to invoke something "outside" the text, whether this be the Renaissance topos of friendship versus love, the passive function assigned to women in in the cementing of homosocial bonds, the question of elementary decency in dealing with another human being, or whatever. And why not character? The moment we ask ourselves whether it is "probable" that a normal red-blooded individual would act like Valentine, we are implicitly invoking the issue of character. And the same issue is invoked whenever we ask those questions which it is difficult not to ask in reading Shakespeare's plays -- Why is Othello is so vulnerable to Iago's insinuations? Is Katherina being ironical at the end of "The Taming of the Shrew"? Is Coriolanus's rejection of praise sincere? Why does Lear fail to perceive the devotion of Cordelia until it is too late? And so on. The problem is, how far is it legitimate to go in looking beyond what is strictly in the text for answers to questions that are raised within it? One answer, possibly, is that one can go as far as one likes as long as it is the text itself that remains the primary point of reference. It may seem absurd to ask how many children Lady Macbeth had, but one can imagine circumstances in which even this question might not seem quite so ridiculous as it is represented as being: this is a play, after all, in which children are present, and in which they are brutally murdered, and the question of how many children Lady Macbeth had might have some connection (for instance) with the problem of how many children Lady Macduff had. On the other hand, it should also be mentioned that since Lady Macbeth explicitly mentions having given suck to a child, there is textual warrant for saying that she has had at least one. The same cannot be said about the theory that Hamlet and Ophelia have had sexual relations. The only evidence supporting such a hypothesis is precisely those elements in the text that the hypothesis is supposed to explain, the contents of the songs that Ophelia sings in her distraction. Since those songs echo in their own way Hamlet's own reductive vision of sexuality, it seems to me that they are sufficiently accounted for in terms of Hamlet's destructive influence on the girl he has once professed to love. I don't think it is necessary to infer there have (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Porter Jamison Date: Monday, 19 Feb 1996 18:34:18 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0125 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Character >The many connotations for "nunnery" need or need not have >been in Hamlet's mind, although they are obviously in the >mind of this well-read scholar. I do not cancel out the >possibility that Hamlet would be thinking brothel as well >as convent. The logic of his rhetoric is for convent. His >state of mind is for brothel . . . (snip) Am I the only person who sees Hamlet using the word at first to mean "convent", then after he assumes Ophelia's complicity in the plot to spy on him, he hurls the slang meaning of "brothel" into her face as a parting shot? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 09:00:40 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0130 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0130. Tuesday, 20 February 1996. (1) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 19 Feb 1996 12:16:42 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0127 Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 19 Feb 1996 22:00:06 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0127 Re: Funeral Elegy (3) From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Monday, 19 Feb 1996 21:29:28 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0127 Re: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 19 Feb 1996 12:16:42 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0127 Re: Funeral Elegy Maybe that guy Coville, or whatever his name is, wrote Primary Colors. I mean Clinton's campaign manager. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 19 Feb 1996 22:00:06 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0127 Re: Funeral Elegy If I understand SHAXICON correctly, Foster uses the evidence of rare-word occurrence to calculate the likelihood that a given set of texts is by a single author. Funeral Elegy has stylistic features that are demonstrably unlike late Shakespearean verse. There are 67 lines with feminine endings in the Elegy, which works out at about 11.5 per cent of the poem. The average for verse in the late Shakespearean plays is about 30 per cent, I believe. How are we to weigh evidence derived from rare-word usage with evidence derived from feminine ending usage? Gabriel Egan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Monday, 19 Feb 1996 21:29:28 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0127 Re: Funeral Elegy I don't have much to add to the latest set of postings on the Funeral Elegy; we've all pretty much said our piece for now, though this certainly won't be the last word on the subject. A few observations, though. Stephanie Hughes finds the Elegy lacking in the passion of even Shakespeare's worst poetry; that's obviously a subjective judgement, on which people can and will differ. She also says that "Many lines don't scan. Show me one thing we know to be Shakespeare's that doesn't scan." Actually, the scansion of the elegy, and its prosody in general, is very similar to Shakespeare's, as Don Foster shows on pp. 82-89 of his book. "W.S. is a skilled metrician. His elegy contains few irregular lines, and of these, none can be described as unfortunate. There are in the Elegy only two lines with an extra foot (122, 309), both of which are commensurate with Shakespeare's practice. For example, the elegist, in compiling a list of seventeen virtues that adorned William Peter, inserts in his iambic verse a single line of hexameter (122), as does Shakespeare in Timon's list of seventeen social goods (Tim. 4.1.15-21). In both cases the irregular line helps to vary the rhythm, breaking up the potential monotony of a list." (*Elegy by W.S., p.88-89). Richard Kennedy says that "I haven't heard that Chapman was a chum of Prince Henry, or even knew the man." Actually, Prince Henry was Chapman's patron, so I would guess they had at least met; the printed dedication (to Henry Jones) of Chapman's elegy begins, "The most unvaluable and dismayful loss of my most dear and heroical Patron, Prince Henry, hath so stricken all my spirits to the earth, that I will never more dare to look up to any greatness; but resolving the little rest of my poor life to obscurity, and the shadow of his death, prepare ever hereafter for the light of Heaven." Both Hughes and Kennedy are perfectly within their rights not to believe that Shakespeare wrote this poem, though we've only covered a tiny sliver of the relevant arguments in this discussion. Many people, and certainly not just Oxfordians, find it very hard to imagine Shakespeare writing this piece of relatively lame verse; Hughes and Kennedy have both ably expressed this skeptical view. However, I do think the Elegy and the arguments for ascribing it to Shakespeare both deserve a closer look than many people have been giving them, and that's what I've tried to do in this discussion. If we're going to discuss the Elegy intelligently, we should at least have a decent idea of the historical and literary context in which it was written, as well as the actual nature of the arguments in its behalf (as opposed to watered-down newspaper accounts). As for Bill Godshalk: his scenario for the publication of FE sounds as reasonable as any other, though we need to be careful to keep our arguments separate. Whether or not Thorpe expected to make any money off FE doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how he got the manuscript; I could easily imagine a scenario where W.S. came to Thorpe with the manuscript, and Thorpe published it as a normal money-making venture. If W.S. was recognized (in at least some circles) as William Shakespeare, that would be an obvious selling point. In any case, I think it's a good bet that Thorpe came by the manuscript directly from the author. Katherine Duncan-Jones has argued pretty convincingly that Thorpe has gotten a bum rap from scholars and was actually a very conscientious stationer: most of the texts he worked from were very good ones; in many cases there is evidence of authorial corrections during the press run, and/or other evidence of direct approval of the publication by the author; the same authors kept coming back to Thorpe. Thorpe may not have been a "major player" in terms of number of publications, but he was more significant in terms of the quality of his publications. I agree that we need to ground our speculation in the best evidence we have; I think the best evidence indicates that Thorpe probably got the manuscript of the Elegy directly from the author, though whether the publication was private is a separate and less clear issue. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 09:05:02 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0131 Qs: American Festival Theatre; John Porter Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0131. Tuesday, 20 February 1996. (1) From: Jodi Clark Date: Monday, 19 Feb 1996 10:48:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: The American Festival Theatre (2) From: Ron Shields Date: Monday, 19 Feb 1996 12:42:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: John Porter (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jodi Clark Date: Monday, 19 Feb 1996 10:48:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: The American Festival Theatre I was wondering if anyone had heard any of the details in regards to the reopening of the American Festival Theatre in Stratford, CT. As far as I know, a Mr. Louis Burke is in charge and plans to have a season this soummer outdoors while the theatre is being renovated. James Earl Jones expressed interest in performing in a production of Twelfth Night (as Malvolio?) If anyone know of how to get in touch with any of the people involved with this renovation or if they are in the process of hiring people, please let me know. Thanks, Jodi Clark Marlboro College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Shields Date: Monday, 19 Feb 1996 12:42:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: John Porter I researching the life and brief public reading career of John Porter. He read from the Great Bible at St. Paul's in London during the early 1540's. His murder is described in Fox's Book of Martyrs. Where can I gather solid biographical information, accounts of his reported murder, and first-hand accounts of his scripture reading? Please reply directly: rshield@bgnet.bgsu.edu Ron Shields Associate Professor and Chair Theatre Bowling Green State University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 09:07:21 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0132 Shakespeare and KJV--and Cranmer's Psalms Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0132. Tuesday, 20 February 1996. From: John Velz Date: Monday, 19 Feb 1996 20:54:11 +0200 Subject: Shakespeare and KJV--and Cranmer's Psalms It is very satisfying to have Richard J. Kennedy's constellation of laudatory remarks about the KJV and no less his account of the virtually anonymous and entirely unrequited labors of 54 translators. But it would be strange indeed if Shakespeare had been tapped to join them. He had no theological credentials: no University degree with its theological emphasis, no holy orders, no distinction as a man of religion, no publications in the field, and only competent, not an expert's, Latinity. Even if a poet might be tapped, as W.H.Auden was tapped by the Episcopal Church of U.S.in the mid-1970s to work on the Psalms for the new Book of Common Prayer, Shakespeare would not have been thought a major literary figure, because until 1616 when Ben Jonson defiantly included in "The [Folio] Works of Benjamin Jonson" his plays and masques, no one ever had regarded a contemporary English play as a work of literature. It is strange to realize that the plays of Shakespeare were until Jonson's venture no more literature than TV scripts are now. Indeed, Sir Thomas Bodley instructed his Keeper of Books, Thomas James, not to purchase any quartos of plays, as he did not want to clutter up the growing Bodleian Library with "Baggage Books" or "riff raff". (2 letters written after 1598 when Bodley began gathering his library and before 1613, when Bodley died). Someone earlier seems to have thought that Thomas Cranmer translated the whole Bible, unless I misread the statement. He did not, of course, but translated the Psalms for the vernacular Book of Common Prayer, the third edition of which, 1559, was the "Elizabethan" B.C.P. which Shakespeare heard read from in Holy Trinity Church, as Richmond Noble knew. Scriptural readings except Psalms would be from the Bishops' Bible and Psalms always from the BCP in Cranmer's translation. Once about 30 years ago in Washington National Cathedral, I was present at Evensong and noticed a man about my age near me without a BCP during the reading of a Psalm. I made to hand him my book, open to the correct Psalm, and he waved it off, and--hearing him reciting with the rest of the congregation as naturally without book as he might have recited the Lord's Prayer--I realized to my embarrassment that he had this Psalm, possibly the whole Psalter, committed to memory. (This would have been the 1928 Prayer Book.) Shakespeare seems to have had such a memory for Cranmer's cadences as this man had for their much later redaction. J.W.Velz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 09:45:42 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0133 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0133. Tuesday, 20 February 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, February 20, 1996 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: ROLE CLOWN & SHYLOCK REVIEW As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve Lori M. Culwell's "The Role of the Clown in Shakespeare's Theatre" (ROLE CLOWN) from the SHAKSPER Fileserver and Jack M. Kamen's Review of John Gross's *Shylock* (SHYLOCK REVIEW). To retrieve "ROLE CLOWN", send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET ROLE CLOWN". To retrieve "SHYLOCK REVIEW", send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET SHYLOCK REVIEW". Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, please contact the editor at or . PS: On January 4, 1996, SHAKSPER moved from the University of Toronto, where it was founded in July 1990 to Bowie State University. There is one problem that affects some addresses -- my own included -- that causes mail sent to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu addresses to "loop" and be rejected because an excess of "hops." Should your request for the either of these files generate such an error, please use the following address until I announce that the problem has finally been solved, which I hope will be the case in the very near future: LISTSERV@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu ******************************************************************************* "The Role of the Clown in Shakespeare's Theatre" During the Renaissance, dramatic forms were subject to a variety of changes. As audiences changed in composition and education, the theatre necessarily changed as well. The Renaissance began at different times in different areas of Europe, and was a slow process rather than a sudden ideological shift. Though the change was to be dramatic, the past could never be entirely forgotten. In London, the people had the task of incorporating completely new schools of thought, as well as people from all over Europe, into their culture. The question stands: what happens to a cultural symbol (i.e., the theatre) when an ideological shift, however gradual, occurs? Moreover, how was the drama of the previous century integrated into the new, more sophisticated drama that followed the hundred-or-so years of significant change and its effects on England? What follows is an attempt to approach an answer to these questions through an exploration of physicality and clowning in the early modern period. ******************************************************************************* Review of Shylock: A Legend & Its Legacy by John Gross There is not a proper name that does not evoke emotion. It may be bland (Jane, as in 'plain Jane'), to loathing and disgust (Adolf, as in Adolf XXXXXX). Hearing 'Shylock' raises a spectre that is more than ethereal. It is near palpable. To a Jew it is a name that is ever linked to that stereotype that anti-Jews invoke in their hatreds. When not used in the context of discussion of the word itself, the word is venomous . To anathematize a Jew one need do no more than speak "Shylock". This book does not directly ask or answer the always asked question re: The Merchant of Venice. Is it 'anti-Semitic' as many Jews and especially Jewish critics and commentators believe, and if so, did Shakespeare intend it to be so? Instead, the London theatre critic John Gross, gives us the information and insights to form opinions and re-form biases. Shylock is not the merchant of the title. That appelation falls to Antonio, the (?anti)hero of this "Romantic Comedy". (Yes, it was originally presented to the public as such), although its first title page (circa 1600), describes the play, in part, as "The most excellent historie of the Merchant of Venice, with the extreame crueltie of Shylocke the Jewe towards the sayd merchant, in cutting a just pound of his flesh:....." This blurb was probably not penned by W.S. but, rather, the printer, who was after what all commercialists seek--sales. Nevertheless, with that the stage is verily set. First off, was Shakespeare an anti-Jew? Hard to say but probably not, or better yet, since most judgements are on a comparative basis, not when he's put up against such as Christopher Marlowe who wrote the 'Jew of Malta'. Now this play was downright mean spirited and would please any Nazi skinhead. Shakespeare was not an original dramatist in the sense that he conceived the plots of his plays. All of his works, 'cept two or three, are reworks of other playwright(s). So it was with the 'Merchant'. It was derived from a fourteenth century Italian story and came already equipped with the Jew. With his genius, however, he molded this crude clump of a drama into a product, a presentation, that would sell tickets. Since he was a major shareholder in his theatre group it was paramount that the play have wide audience appeal, his audience consisting of all social classes, from lowly trade apprentices to the high and mighty lords and ladies. But what did appeal to the early seventeenth century theatregoers? They certainly had no contact with Jews for they were butchered or expelled from England three hundred years prior. On the other hand, they sure heard of Jews through the Church, and myths, and fables, and rumors. Yes, if he needed another Iago, an archvillian simply to be part of a plot, why then a Jew would do nicely. What the original trifle did not have was the name of this Jew--Shylock. This was purely Shakespeare's invention. From whence it entered his brain remains to this day a mystery. He could have chosen Moses, Isaac, or Irving (all right, maybe not Irving), and all would know this was a Jew. Instead____ Shylock. From the book: .......the name is not only distinctive, it feels right. It is the right name for the man who locks up his money and tells his daughter to lock up his door.========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 21:38:31 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0134 Qs: Odor/Weddings; *Per.*; Educational Videos; Shylock Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0134. Thursday, 22 February 1996. (1) From: Michael Best Date: Wednesday, 21 Feb 1996 08:21:34 -0800 Subj: Bodily odours and weddings (2) From: David Skeele Date: Tuesday, 20 Feb 96 12:51:46 EST Subj: [*Pericles*] (3) From: Mike Field Date: Wednesday, 21 Feb 1996 13:10:05 -0500 Subj: Educational Videos (4) From: Richard Spacek Date: Thursday, 22 Feb 1996 12:18:24 -0400 Subj: The Judgement of Shylock (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Best Date: Wednesday, 21 Feb 1996 08:21:34 -0800 Subject: Bodily odours and weddings I have been trying to find concrete evidence to support two commonly held beliefs about social life in renaissance England, but can find nothing. Can anyone help? 1. There seems to be a widespread belief that the Elizabethans did not wash, and that they (the nobility at any rate) covered their bodily smells with perfume rather than bathing. The poorer classes presumably simply stank. Is there any evidence to support this assertion? 2. Did the marriage rituals of the time conclude with some kind of charivari -- the awakening of the bedded couple with noise or other kinds of celebration / torment? Again, I've seen this referred to, but never with any kind of contemporary reference. Michael Best Department of English University of Victoria (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Tuesday, 20 Feb 96 12:51:46 EST Subject: [*Pericles*] A couple of weeks ago, I sent out a query regarding poststructuralist criticism of _Pericles_. I haven't heard anything in response yet, and that may be because none of the information I am seeking exists. However, if no one minds I thought I would reissue the query, adding an additional question to the mix. What I had asked was whether anyone was aware of any recent criticism of _Pericles_ which does not seek to apply any kind of unifying pattern to the play's various fragments, but rather accepts the fragmentation (perhaps even celebrates it). Currently in my writing I am leaning too heavily on Steven Mullaney's New Historicist reading, which does not so much embrace the fragmentation as simply render the whole question of unity irrelevant. I was particularly interested in hearing more about the book "Shakespeare's Theatre of Wonders" which was mentioned by Kristin Olson a few weeks ago. Foolishly, I deleted the message which contained your E-mail address, Kristin, (and I had to jettison the SHAKSPER directory to make more room some time ago), so I hope that you see this and respond (either directly or through SHAKSPER). My second query involves the National Theatre production of _Pericles_ from June of 1994. I have written a chapter which examines postmodern,"collage" type treatments of the play, focussing on Peter Sellars' 1983 production at Boston Shakespeare and Michael Greif's staging at New York Shakespeare Festival. Has anyone seen the production at the National? What were your general impressions? Was the director seeking to apply a unifying concept to the play, or did she seem to be deliberately fostering a sense of incoherence and fragmentation? In other words, to what extent, in your opinion, was this a "postmodern" production? I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks! (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Field Date: Wednesday, 21 Feb 1996 13:10:05 -0500 Subject: Educational Videos I know this subject has been touched upon from time to time, but I'm wondering what kind of video programs, designed specifically for high school and/or college-level students, are currently on the market? Is there, perchance, a list somewhere of what's available? Any recommendations or execrations? Please feel free to reply directly if you wish. Mike Field pmf@jhu.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Spacek Date: Thursday, 22 Feb 1996 12:18:24 -0400 Subject: The Judgement of Shylock Here is a nice riddle: exactly what remains to Shylock after the court's judgement and Antonio's "rendering of mercy"? Is it (G/2) - F, where "G" = all Shylock's goods and "F" = a fine imposed by the Duke? Or simply (G/2)? The simple splitting in half of Shylock's goods seems most likely to me--a gentle, Christian punishment it appears, although an age less used to taxes might have considered it harsh. Antonio appears willing to administer his half of Shylock's goods only briefly. I can't help imagining a sequel in which Antonio, forced by Shylock's death to surrender the capital to Lorenzo (but unable to do so because his ships are "wrack'd on the narrow seas"), is dragged into another court--and executed! Antonio: (pleading) I did once lend my body for your wealth. Bassanio: (snickering) Pardon this fault, and by my soul I swear I never more will break an oath with thee. . . . Richard Spacek Dept. of English/Extension University of New Brunswick ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 21:42:27 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0135 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0135. Thursday, 22 February 1996. (1) From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Tuesday, 20 Feb 1996 22:36:06 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0130 Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Thursday, 22 Feb 1996 11:50:03 -0800 Subj: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Tuesday, 20 Feb 1996 22:36:06 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0130 Re: Funeral Elegy Gabriel Egan notes that the Funeral Elegy has 67 lines with feminine endings (i.e. lines where the last syllable is not stressed), or 11.5 percent; he claims that this conflicts with a figure of 30 percent for the late plays. But that 30 percent figure refers to *all* kinds of verse, both blank and rhymed; to make a valid comparison, you have to separate blank verse from rhymed verse, since the nature of rhyme (with its emphasis on the end of the line) tends to discourage feminine endings (with their unstressed final syllable). Actually, that 11.5 figure is quite consistent with Shakespeare's practice in his rhymed verse; "Venus and Adonis", "Lucrece", "The Phoenix and the Turtle", the Sonnets, and "A Lover's Complaint" have a combined incidence of 10.5 percent feminine endings. In "The Tempest", the last Shakespeare play before the Elegy, there are 23 feminine endings out of 142 rhymed lines (16.2 percent); if we exclude the 12-line trochaic song of Juno and Ceres at 4.1.106-117, in which every line is deliberately feminine for effect, we get 11 of 130 feminine endings, or 8.5 percent. The percentage of feminine endings in the Elegy is right about what we should expect if it was written by Shakespeare. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Thursday, 22 Feb 1996 11:50:03 -0800 Subject: Funeral Elegy David Kathman, sorry, I didn't know that Prince Henry was a patron of Chapman, but I still wonder why his elegy is very like that of W.S. That is to say, how can a good poet commit such a rape on his reputation? Except that maybe it was understood about elegies. Maybe elegies were taken to be all poof and poop, something for the ages, not to be taken seriously. How could Chapman have spent over 600 lines of low-grade rhyme on the man? And more than that, stick in a dedication wherein he claims that the death of the man (and a good man, no doubt) "hath so stricken all my spirits to the earth, that I will never more dare to look up to any greatness; but resolving the little rest of my poor life to obscurity, and the shadow of his death, prepare ever hereafter for the light of heaven." Lord, are we to take that seriously. The death of my mother is not going to bring me down that much. I'm quite serious, do you suppose there were professional Elegy writers? Maybe they got paid by the line, and maybe Chapman, being busy with high-class poetry, hired one to do 600 lines for Prince Henry. Or maybe the King hired someone to write this awful thing and put Chapman's name on it. Or maybe it was worse than that. Maybe someone kept a stable of elegy writers, dreary fellows who knew the drill whether the deceased be common or royal that he should be blazed forth with such radiant glories as would make a saint blush. And these Fagin-like minions were all chained below stairs, kept in weeping loss and the promise of heavenly recompense, who daily churned out this drivel in hope to please their master that they should one day breath again in the sunshine, and look into the blue sky. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 21:45:08 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0136 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Character Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0136. Thursday, 22 February 1996. From: Clark Bowlen Date: Wednesday, 21 Feb 1996 14:51:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: SHK 7.0129 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Character Other have eloquently addressed most of the issues around drama and character--Hamlet and Ophelia's sexual relationship, the Macbeth's kids, etc. But there is one important point I have not heard voiced so far. Playwrights must leave room for actors to create the emotional life of the character within themselves, out of their own flesh, and feelings and imagination. Too much information about character--the sort a novelist supplies--stiffles actors and creates wooden performances (to say nothing about making the part hard to cast). Dramatic characters are skeletons to be fleshed out by the actor. The trick to good playwriting is inspiring actors, not confining them. It is about raising possibilities, planting questions, not about supplying answers. It seems to me entirely appropriate, therefore, to discuss questions about character history. The kind and quality of questions the playwright plants are part of his dramaturgy. The fact that we are compelled to speculate about Hamlet and Ophelia's sexual relationship, or the Macbeth's children in spite of considerable peer pressure to the contrary, I take as a measure of Shakespeare's genius. What more inspirational questions than those about procreation! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 21:47:05 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0137 1997 SAA Program Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0137. Thursday, 22 February 1996. From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Thursday, 22 Feb 96 16:42:00 PST Subject: 1997 SAA Program SAA members are invited to make formal or informal proposals for the March 28-30, 1997 meeting in Washington, D.C. Please send hard copy (no e-mail please) to any of the following Program Committee members before 1 April: John Astington (Toronto); Frances Dolan (Miami-Ohio, currently at the Folger Library); Naomi Miller (Arizona); Karen Newman (Brown); A.R. Braunmuller (UCLA). Addresses are in the SAA Directory. Posted by Georgianna Ziegler at the request of Al Braunmuller, Chair========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 13:59:28 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0141 *Pericles*; Works Attributed to Shakespeare Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0141. Tuesday, 27 February 1996. (1) From: Michael Saenger Date: Friday, 23 Feb 1996 11:44:38 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: *Per.* (2) From: Michael A. Norman Date: Friday, 23 Feb 1996 13:13:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Works Attributed to Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Friday, 23 Feb 1996 11:44:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: *Per.* Regarding David Skeele's query on Pericles; I did some research on this subject and the best article I found was "Gower and Shakesperae in Pericles," by F. David Hoeniger, SQ 33 (1982): 461-79. This is widely viewed as the best attempt to make sense of the play (in terms of irony, parody and metatext), but still the prevailing view is that it is not a possible task. I still think more work could be done along Hoeniger's lines and I would be eager to hear what you come up with. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael A. Norman Date: Friday, 23 Feb 1996 13:13:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Works Attributed to Shakespeare I need to find sources which discuss works attributed erroneously to Shakespeare. Does anyone have any suggestions? Any help would be appreciated. Michael Norman University of North Carolina at Greensboro ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 13:55:00 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0140 Re: Educational Videos Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0140. Tuesday, 27 February 1996. (1) From: Ian H. Doescher Date: Friday, 23 Feb 1996 00:05:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: Educational videos (2) From: David R. Maier Date: Friday, 23 Feb 1996 15:09:31 -0800 Subj: re: Educational Videos (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian H. Doescher Date: Friday, 23 Feb 1996 00:05:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Educational videos Mike Field writes: >I know this subject has been touched upon from time to time, but I'm wondering what kind of video programs, designed specifically for high school and/orcollege-level students, are currently on the market? Speaking as a freshman in college, I can honestly say that I don't think high school and college students need special instructional videos for Shakespeare. It's delightful and interesting to work with the raw text, and every Shakespeare movie I've ever seen hasn't lost me, or left me wondering what Shakespeare meant. I think it's a misconception that people make that high school and college age students need aids to Shakespeare. I have a friend who teaches the fifth grade who has students memorizing Shakespeare, reading, and viewing the plays. High school and college students ought to be very able. Ian Doescher Yale University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David R. Maier Date: Friday, 23 Feb 1996 15:09:31 -0800 Subject: re: Educational Videos I too am interested in educational videos, so I encourage anyone with information on the subject to post to this list. Thank you. David Maier dmaier@orednet.org ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 11:28:15 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0138 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0138. Tuesday, 27 February 1996. (1) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Thursday, 22 Feb 1996 21:14:59 -0800 Subj: Funeral Elegy (2) From: W. Russell Mayes Date: Friday, 23 Feb 1996 09:23:45 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0135 Re: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Thursday, 22 Feb 1996 21:14:59 -0800 Subject: Funeral Elegy Because the Funeral Elegy was signed W.S., it doesn't mean we can conclude that the author's name was Wilber Samson, Walter Smith, or William Shakespeare, or any name that accounts for the W.S. initials. We've been fooled by that before. The STC gives us John Fletcher to be A.D., Thomas Dekker to be P., Claude Desainliens to be Mr. C.H., J. Price to be J.S., Matthew Sutcliffe to be O.E., William Wright to be W.G., and many more of the same, making no match between the name of a writer and the initials given on the book. Maybe someone with different initials wrote the Elegy. Or maybe the initials W.S. match the name of someone we don't know about, someone who paid to have the elegy written. We don't know yet, and it seems prudent to doubt that this third-rate poetry is by Shakespeare, and to be very, very slow about accepting the word of Shaxicon that it's so. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. Russell Mayes Date: Friday, 23 Feb 1996 09:23:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0135 Re: Funeral Elegy Richard Kennedy writes: > I'm quite serious, do you suppose there were professional Elegy writers? Maybe > they got paid by the line, and maybe Chapman, being busy with high-class > poetry, hired one to do 600 lines for Prince Henry. Or maybe the King hired > someone to write this awful thing and put Chapman's name on it. Or maybe it > was worse than that. I don't know if there were "professional elegy writers" (the "dreary fellows" of Kennedy's next paragraph), but I do know that there are many competent, if not excellent, elegies written in the 17th century. Carew's elegy on Donne, comes to mind, as do many of Jonson's elegaic poems, ranging from the brief epigraph on the death of his first son to the longer "Cary-Morrison Ode." Of course, none of these are nearly as long as Chapman's or WS's, but they are examples of elegaic poems that wouldn't hurt the poet's reputation. W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Department of Literature and Language University of North Carolina at Asheville ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 12:10:07 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0139 Re: Characters Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0139. Tuesday, 27 February 1996. (1) From: John Drakakis Date: Friday, 23 Feb 1996 12:34:53 GMT Subj: RE: SHK 7.0136 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and (2) From: Steve Sohmer Date: Friday, 23 Feb 1996 09:04:50 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0136 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Character (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Friday, 23 Feb 1996 12:34:53 GMT Subject: RE: SHK 7.0136 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and I had thought that the "character" debate had really run itself into the ground, and was determined to exercise as much restraint as I could, lest I diorientate Steve Urkowitz more than is good for him. But Clark Bowlen's commnet crystallizes what a number of other contributors to the debate have edged towards: that there is clearly a confusion between reading a Shakespearean text, and the demands that actors might place upon it. Bowlen argues that "Playwrights must leave room for actors to create the emotional life of the characters within themselves out of their own flesh and feelings and imagination". The most eloquent defence of this approach is, of course John Russell Brown's Shakespeare's Plays in Performance (1966). What is, of course missing from assertions such as that of Bowlen that the actor suppies the same kinds of information about a "character" that a novelist supplies by other means, is any kind of statement about what it IS that is supplied. The tacit assumption seems to be that either "Shakespeare" is the "character" behind his texts which it is the hermeneutic task of the critic to discover, or it is "the actor" who provides the insight into "character" out of her/his "own flesh and feelings and imagination". In either case, whether the resource for this is Shakespeare's "genius", or the actor's inner life, the problem still remains: where do the "feelings and imagination" come from. Bowlen speaks as though they have some kind of independent existence amenable to empirical study. My point is that like the concept of "character" they emanate from a constellation of ideological assumptions. Simply to assert that a Shakespearean text (agumented by the actor's performance) is doing the same as a novelist but by another means exacerbates the very essentialist knot that I would like to see untied. That, of course, says nothing about the assumption that a Shakespearean theatrical representation is the means by which we locate some form of unchanging human nature, hence the actor can share with the dramatist the task of unfolding to the spectator what everybody always knew about the inner lives of individuals. What Bowlen, and others seem unable or unwilling to concede is that their very notion of "character" imposed on a Shakespearean text produces an anachronism. In teaching, as Hardy Cook himself pointed out, we often start from modern conceptions such as "character" in our discussions of these plays: we name characters, we discuss their motives etc. But it seems to me that we would be failing in our pedagogic duties if we just left the discussion there. The more we examine our own preconceptions about human behaviour the more we realize that these theatrical representation that we seek to understand are quite "foreign" to us. How we domesticate that foreignness ought, in my view to be the object of our study. Cheers, John Drakakis (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Friday, 23 Feb 1996 09:04:50 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0136 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Character Clark Bowden is quite right about how much (or how little) one tells an actor/actress about the character they're playing. An actress friend did a perfectly luminous Portia in JC. After the play I asked her what she thought Shakespeare meant when he wrote "It is not for your helath thus to commit Your weak condition to the raw cold morning." She said, "Oh. Do you mean--do I think I'm pregnant? No. No. That s.o.b. has a secret, and I'm going to pry it out of him." One of the marvels of Shakespeare is that his plays can be done on this level. On the other hand, a scholar (I think) ought to be concerned with the question of Portia's weak condition, as one needs to remember that Shakespeare believed Brutus was an illegitimate bastard (which informs his line: "O ye gods, Render me worthy of this *noble* wife"). One would get a very different reading of Portia from an actress who was drilled to remember what it meant to be Cato's daughter, what all of Rome knew had fallen out between Julius Caesar and her father, what will happen to her brother in 5.4, that Brutus got along well with JC until he married Portia, etc. A performance of a play is one translation of a text merely, at a time and in a place by these and these. All the best, Steve ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 19:49:41 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0142 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 142. Wednesday, 28 February 1996. (1) From: Porter Jamison Date: Monday, 26 Feb 1996 21:32:20 -0800 Subj: Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Sunday, 25 Feb 1996 13:37:38 -0800 Subj: Funeral Elegy (3) From: G. I. Egan Date: Sunday, 25 Feb 1996 17:50:58 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0135 Re: Funeral Elegy (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 27 Feb 1996 09:59:20 -0500 (EST) Subj: FE (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Porter Jamison Date: Monday, 26 Feb 1996 21:32:20 -0800 Subject: Re: Funeral Elegy What is known of the man who died? Was he married in 1603? Did he have children? If the answer to either of these is "no", then the poem wasn't written in 1612 about this particular man... I haven't had the chance to study and dissect the piece yet (which, I know, makes me a johnny-come-lately among SHAKSPERians), but upon skimming the poem lightly, it seems a number of words are used in ways Shakespeare doesn't use them. Has anyone else noticed this and done a study? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Sunday, 25 Feb 1996 13:37:38 -0800 Subject: Funeral Elegy Don Foster says we shouldn't expect too much poetry out of the Funeral Elegy, nothing fancy like interesting imagery, original and well-wrought lines, for the reason that the FE is written in "plain style." The trouble is, there IS no such thing as "plain style." Foster made up the word to excuse the poem for being such a drag. Bill Godshalk says that it's worse than that. He says what we're really into is "micro-style", and we will discover thereby the Shakespearean lilt and genius of the thing. Micro-style is a brand new word also, coined to cover a multitude of faults. I take it to be essentially the Shaxicon program, which is something like a carrot-grater that judges poetry. There is "plain song", but it always needs some verse to be sung. The Funeral Elegy cannot be sung and can hardly be spoken aloud, according to the testimony reported here of a group who has tried it out. Micro-style we will have to learn more about. I'm told that it will make the Funeral Elegy more like Shakespeare's other poems, which reminds me of Mark Twain's comment on Wagner's music: "They tell me it's much better than it sounds." (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: G. I. Egan Date: Sunday, 25 Feb 1996 17:50:58 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0135 Re: Funeral Elegy David Kathman argues that in order to make a valid comparison between the 11.5 per cent of lines in Funeral Elegy which have feminine endings and the 30 per cent of late Shakespearean verse which has feminine endings > you have to separate blank verse from > rhymed verse, since the nature of rhyme (with its emphasis on the end of the > line) tends to discourage feminine endings (with their unstressed final > syllable). This requires a model of the creative process in which some features are more intended than others. What evidence is there that the decision to use rhyme makes a poet less likely to use feminine endings? If you mean that it is harder to find rhymes for feminine endings, so the poet avoids them, you are making an assumption about the effort put into the creation. Every feminine ending in the Elegy is rhymed, and all but one of these rhymes (line 507 with line 509) is also a feminine rhyme, ie where the final two syllables rhyme (eg 'ambition' with 'commission'). Kathman goes on to examine the proportion of feminine endings in the rhymed verse in The Tempest: > there are 23 feminine endings out of 142 rhymed lines (16.2 >percent); if we exclude the 12-line trochaic song of Juno and Ceres at >4.1.106-117, in which every line is deliberately feminine for effect,we get 11 >of 130 feminine endings, or 8.5 percent. If certain parts are excluded because "every line is deliberately feminine for effect" you need to state your criteria for deciding what is not deliberate, what is not 'an effect'. These unstated criteria define the limits of stylometric analysis, do they not? Gabriel Egan (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 27 Feb 1996 09:59:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: FE If I haven't missed anything, no one has yet mentioned Richard Abrams' "In Defense of W.S." in TLS 9 Feb. 1996, 25-26, and Stanley Wells' response in TLS 16 Feb. 1996, 17. Abrams basically argues for Shakespeare's authorship, and Wells points out some problems with that ascription. Wells believes that "a common feature of Shakespeare's late verse is the presence of the elided forms 'i'th' ' and 'o'th.' '" He claims to have found "not a single one in the poem." Further, Wells indicates that Shakespeare's use of feminine endings dramatically increases to over 30 per cent in the late plays, and it's only 11.6 per cent in FE. Egan has already made that point here, but Kathman agues that we should look only at non-dramatic poetry in this context. But what context shall we accept? I think it may be bad procedure to use Shakespeare's late dramatic style for statistics on, say, enjambement, and Shakespeare's (basically early) non-dramatic style for statistics on, say, feminine endings and elision. In which of Shakespeare's "styles" is FE written? I don't think we should use a different standard to judge each stylistic particularity in FE. Wells, following Foster, points out that Shakespeare's brother Gilbert "died and was buried in Stratford during the period in which the elegy has to have been written" (17). Did Shakespeare neglect his brother and concentrate his energies on a "friend"? Maybe so. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 20:13:25 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0143 Qs: *Oth.*; Acting Co.'s *H5*; *Tmp.* Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 143. Wednesday, 28 February 1996. (1) From: Caroline Gebhard Date: Monday, 26 Feb 1996 09:46:17 -0500 (CDT) Subj: *Othello* Question (2) From: Michael Swanson Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 18:39:24 -0500 Subj: The Acting Company's "H5" (3) From: Rod Osiowy Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 16:12:24 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: The Tempest (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Caroline Gebhard Date: Monday, 26 Feb 1996 09:46:17 -0500 (CDT) Subject: *Othello* Question My students wonder whether to read Othello as a Christian convert. One student noted that in the Branaugh film, he obverses Muslim rites. Has Othello's "faith" been discussed previously? We would appreciate hearing from members on the list what they make of Othello's religion. Caroline Gebhard Tuskegee University gebhard@acd.tusk.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Swanson Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 18:39:24 -0500 Subject: The Acting Company's "H5" I forwarded the recent review of the Acting Company's "Henry V" to a coleague to my college's English department who was very intrigued, and asked me if I knew the company's tour schedule. that the schedule may have been oiscussion list, but I'm not sure, and I didn't keep it. Does anyone out there have such a schedule, and, if so, could it be e-mailed or mailed to me? Thanks for the help. Michael Swanson Chair, Fine Arts Department Director of Theatre Franklin College of Indiana (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rod Osiowy Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 16:12:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: The Tempest I am currently researching The Tempest for production for our next season. I am looking for essays, interpretations, other productions, videos, still photos of sets, costumes, and characters. I have 10 months in which to immerse myself in the play and intend to do so. Please refresh my memory as to how to access the archives for materials that have already been discussed on the Shakespeare line on the topic of The Tempest. I directed "A Midsummer Night's Dream" with the help of the Shakespeare line, and by all reviews, the play was a success. Thank you. RodO Rosiowy@cln.etc.bc.ca ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 20:17:58 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0144 Re: Works Attributed to Shakespeare Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 144. Wednesday, 28 February 1996. (1) From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 18:47:04 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0141 Works Attributed to Shakespeare (2) From: Jim Harner Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 12:50:38 -0600 (CST) Subj: RE: SHK 7.0141 Works Attributed to Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 18:47:04 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0141 Works Attributed to Shakespeare *The Companion To The Playhouse*, printed in Garrick's day and containing very full descriptions of that great actor's style of performance, had the following plays atrributed to Shakespeare in M DCC LXIV: The London Prodigal The Life and Death of Thomas, Lord Cromwell, the Favourite of King Henry VIII The History of Sir John Oldcastle, the good lord Cobham.Tragedy. The London Prodigal. Comedy. The Puritan, or The Widow of Watlinbg Street. Comedy. A Yorkshire Tragedy. This is rather an Interlude than a Tragedy, being very fhort, and not divided into Acts. The Tragedy of Locrine, the eldest Son of King Brutus. [Printed for T.Becket and P.A.Dehondt, in the Strand; C.Henderson, at the Royal Eschange; and T.Davies, in Russel-Street, Covent Garden.] Harry Hill (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Harner Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 12:50:38 -0600 (CST) Subject: RE: SHK 7.0141 Works Attributed to Shakespeare Regarding Michael Norman's quey about finding works erroneously attributed to Shakespeare: See the section Play Groups/Apocrypha in the annual World Shakespeare Bibliography (in _Shakespeare Quarterly_) or search under the keyword "attribution" or "apocrypha" in the _World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM_. Jim Harner ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 20:31:35 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0145 Re: Pennington; *Per.*; Weddings; VideosFILE CharacterBACK Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 145. Wednesday, 28 February 1996. (1) From: Mark Fisher Date: Tuesday, 27 Feb 1996 10:22:55 +0000 Subj: Pennington book (2) From: Susanne Collier Date: Tuesday, 27 Feb 1996 18:07:35 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: *Per.* (3) From: D. Laing Date: Saturday, 24 Feb 1996 12:34:40 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0134 Qs: Odor/Weddings (4) From: Mary McKenzie Date: Tuesday, 27 Feb 1996 16:39:52 +1100 Subj: Shakespeare and Character (5) From: Susanne Ccollier Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 14:08:02 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0140 Re: Educational Videos (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Fisher Date: Tuesday, 27 Feb 1996 10:22:55 +0000 Subject: Pennington book Further to the request for information about a US publisher for Michael Pennington's Hamlet: A User's Guide, I've checked with the UK publisher, Nick Hern Books, and apparently it's due out in the fall from Limelight Editions, Proscenium Publishers, 118 East 30th Street, New York NY 10016. There may be NHB copies available in the meantime at the Shakespeare Repertory Co, Chicago, tel 312 642 8394, attn: Mary Alyce Buck, where they were selling a few while the author was over there directing 12th night. All the best Mark Fisher (fisher@easynet.co,uk) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susanne Collier Date: Tuesday, 27 Feb 1996 18:07:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: *Per.* For David Skeele: I'm afraid I can't give you any fragmentary productions, but there was a splendid, low budget production, directed by one of the RSC designers whose name escapes me at the moment, which deliberately, and rather formulaically patterned the play into trios by using I think, 5(maybe 6) actors at Stratford East in 1983. Gerard Murphy (the Hal in the Barbican inaugural Henry IV plays) played Pericles and the other characters were played by two blond actresses (one mature and one very young) who played the two ages of Thaisa. The younger one played Marina as well, and an interesting cyclical relationship with women was thus emphasized for Pericles. I've got the program somewhere, if it's any use to anyone. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: D. Laing Date: Saturday, 24 Feb 1996 12:34:40 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0134 Qs: Odor/Weddings >2. Did the marriage rituals of the time conclude with some kind of charivari -- >the awakening of the bedded couple with noise or other kinds of celebration / >torment? Again, I've seen this referred to, but never with any kind of >contemporary reference. Michael: You might try looking up an article by Michael Bristol called "The Comedy of Abjection" in _True and Maimed Rites_ (1989?). He discusses Othello in terms of a twisted form of charivari. Offhand I can't recall what contemporary evidence he cites though. D. Laing (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary McKenzie Date: Tuesday, 27 Feb 1996 16:39:52 +1100 Subject: Shakespeare and Character Clark Bowlen comments on the recent debate about the history of Shakespearean characters as follows: >Other have eloquently addressed most of the issues around drama and >character--Hamlet and Ophelia's sexual relationship, the Macbeth's kids, etc. >But there is one important point I have not heard voiced so far. > >Playwrights must leave room for actors to create the emotional life of the >character within themselves, out of their own flesh, and feelings and >imagination. Too much information about character--the sort a novelist >supplies--stiffles actors and creates wooden performances (to say nothing about >making the part hard to cast). Dramatic characters are skeletons to be fleshed >out by the actor. The trick to good playwriting is inspiring actors, not >confining them. It is about raising possibilities, planting questions, not >about supplying answers. > >It seems to me entirely appropriate, therefore, to discuss questions about >character history. The kind and quality of questions the playwright plants are >part of his dramaturgy. The fact that we are compelled to speculate about >Hamlet and Ophelia's sexual relationship, or the Macbeth's children in spite of >considerable peer pressure to the contrary, I take as a measure of >Shakespeare's genius. What more inspirational questions than those about >procreation!> I thought the argument was about whether it was useful to treat the personae represented on stage in early modern drama, as if they had lives which could be fleshed out by an actor. So to argue that a good playwright must write characters in a particular way, so that actors can bring out their emotional lives, simply begs the question - by assuming that early modern drama can only be understood by reference to conventions that apply to modern drama in the West - and which are no longer relevant to much late twentieth century theatre. It is not true of all theatre that characters are skeletons to be fleshed out by the actor - and modern audiences might well have found the actors in a Shakespearean performance either wooden or flamboyant. This is not to argue that all speculation must be avoided about events which are not shown or described, or which are hinted at in ambiguous language. There can also be value in allowing the uncertainties to go unanswered - eg did Geretrude commit adultery with Claudius? However, I am reminded of the character in Nicholas Nickleby, Mr Curdle, who had written a pamphlet about whether the Nurse's deceased husband in Romeo and Juliet was a or whether it was only her . Regards, Mary.McKenzie@anu.edu.au (Mary McKenzie, English Department, Australian National University, CANBERRA ACT AUSTRALIA). (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susanne Ccollier Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 14:08:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0140 Re: Educational Videos Having been one of three "talking heads" on the Understanding Shakespeare Series (distributed by Goldhil Media in Thousand Oaks, CA) I can say that attention to format is important. Our series is a good example of a useful collaboration between academics and good american actors performing excerpts from four tragedies, but it is important that the format not assume too much ignorance on the part of the high school audience. I've used parts of them at the college level and I've had good reports from other departments, for what it's worth. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 20:34:46 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0146 UCLA Shakespeare Symposium Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 146. Wednesday, 28 February 1996. From: Martin Zacks Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 09:16:23 -0800 Subject: UCLA Shakespeare Symposium A symposium cosponsored by the UCLA Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies and the UCLA Department of English. March 8, 1996 California Room, UCLA Faculty Center 9:00 a.m. Registration 9:30 Welcoming Remarks, Patrick J. Geary, Director UCLA Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies 9:45 Chair: Michael Warren, UC Santa Cruz "What wuldst thou do, old man?" King Lear: Monarch or Senior Citizen? R.A. Foakes, Department of English, UCLA 10:45 Chair: Michael J.B. Allen, Department of English, UCLA 11:00 King Lear and the Mad Philosphers Jonathan Bate, University of Liverpool 11:30 Women and King Lear Claire McEachern, Department of English, UCLA 12:00 The Final Scene: What We Have to Lose Robert N. Watson, Department of English, UCLA 12:45-2:00 Lunch 2:00 King Lear on Film: Excerpts Granada Productions film starring Laurence Olivier (1983) BBC Production, directed by Jonathan Miller and starring Michael Hordern (1984) 3:00 Panel Discussion Chair: Michael Warren Jonathan Bate Stephen Dickey R.A. Foakes 4:30 Roundtable Discussion 5:00 Closing Remarks Michael J.B. Allen The symposium is free to UCLA students, faculty and staff. A fee of $15 is charged to those from the outside world. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 21:17:20 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0146 Re: Educational Videos Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0146. Thursday, 29 February 1996. (1) From: Laura Blanchard Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 22:44:29 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0140 Re: Educational Videos (2) From: Ian H. Doescher Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 23:07:18 -0500 (EST) Subj: Educational Videos (3) From: Shannon Murray Date: Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 18:28:22 -0400 (AST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0140 Re: Educational Videos (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Blanchard Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 22:44:29 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0140 Re: Educational Videos I've misplaced the direct mail piece right now, but there's a huge set of videos by Dartmouth's Peter Saccio -- something like sixteen hours of lectures -- available for a paltry $189.00. If all else fails, I'm sure Professor Saccio could tell you where to get his tapes. However, I think the freshman was right -- at least, I remember listening to Laurence Olivier on 78s while in the second grade and being entranced. Regards, Laura Blanchard (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian H. Doescher Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 23:07:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Educational Videos To everyone on the SHAKSPER conference: By the way, I'm really sorry if that last e-mail about the educational videos sounded really snotty. I'm really not an egotistical Yale student, and in rereading my posting about the videos, I realize I may have come off wrong. It is simply a pet peeve of mine that people do not think high schoolers and college students have the ability to understand Shakespeare. Ian Doescher (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shannon Murray Date: Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 18:28:22 -0400 (AST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0140 Re: Educational Videos Mike Field and David Maier asked about educational videos for a Shakespeare class. The two I have and use are "Using the Verse," led by John Barton, and "Speaking Shakespearean Verse," led by Trevor Nunn. (One is shown half way through Shakespeare I, the other through Shakespeare II.) Both talk about Shakespeare blank verse using plentiful illustrations demonstrated by RSC actors such as Jane Lapotaire, Ian MacKellan, David Suchet, and Michael Wiliams. I think the Nunn one is better, but both give students a good sense of how to look at iambic pentameter not as an obstacle but as "clues" about the dramatic situation. While I have some trouble holding attention for fifty minutes on the subject of prosody, these videos don't, and my students--many Star Trek fans--pay particular attention to everything Patrick Stewart says. There is a whole series of them, I believe, sold through the Something-or-others for the Humanities catalogues. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 21:26:38 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0147 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0147. Thursday, 29 February 1996. (1) From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 21:04:15 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0138 Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 07:25:29 +0000 Subj: Re: Funeral Elegy (3) From: Judy Kennedy Date: Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 11:41:06 AST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0138 Re: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 21:04:15 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0138 Re: Funeral Elegy Just a few comments on the Funeral Elegy. Richard Kennedy points out that there is no guarantee that the initials W.S. represent the actual initials of the author. True enough. But the fact that these initials occur twice -- on the title page and after the dedication -- makes it unlikely that they were a misprint, and the nature of the publication (especially if you accept Don Foster's scenario of private publication) makes it unclear why the author or publisher would want to be deliberately deceptive. The initials are just one piece of evidence, and the other evidence of Shakespeare's hand would not change if the Elegy were totally anonymous. It's also theoretically possible, as Kennedy suggests, that the initials stand for some hitherto unknown W.S. who wrote just this one thing, but I don't think it's likely. Whoever wrote the Elegy was an accomplished poet, and almost certainly part of the London dramatic scene, as various kinds of internal and external evidence indicates. All other published elegies of 200 or more lines between 1570 and 1630 were written by professional poets, men who made their living with a pen. One point I think we can all agree on, though, is the need to be prudent in accepting any new work as Shakespeare's. Don Foster stated it very well, I think, in the concluding paragraph of his book on the Elegy: "Under no circumstances should the Elegy be admitted to the Shakespeare canon, or be included in forthcoming editions of his collected works, without having first been subjected to the most rigorous cross-examination. Many talented scholars will find it quite preposterous that Shakespeare should be credited with such a poem. Their voice needs to be heard." The arguments for Shakespeare's authorship of the Elegy are indeed undergoing rigorous cross-examination, both here on SHAKSPER and elsewhere, and only time will tell what the outcome will be. I should emphasize that I've mainly been clearing up misunderstandings and defending the Elegy in general terms here on SHAKSPER, and have not really dealt with any of the positive evidence for Shakespeare's authorship. Much of that can be found in Don Foster's book and Richard Abrams' recent pieces in TLS and The Shakespeare Newsletter. This attribution is no idle whim; Foster has been studying this poem for 13 years, and only recently became confident enough to say publicly that he thinks Shakespeare did indeed write it. As I've said before, I hope people will look at the actual arguments and evidence and keep an open mind as the cross-examination continues. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 07:25:29 +0000 Subject: Re: Funeral Elegy There is less here than meets the ear. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judy Kennedy Date: Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 11:41:06 AST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0138 Re: Funeral Elegy There is no such thing as an elegaic poem. Judy Kennedy St.Thomas University ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 21:36:49 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0148 Re: Apocrypha; Othello; Characters; Odor/Weddings Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0148. Thursday, 29 February 1996. (1) From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 21:04:11 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0141 Works Attributed to Shakespeare (2) From: Tunis Romein Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 23:38:21 -0500 Subj: Othello: Christian or Moslem? (3) From: John Lee Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 08:57:27 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0139 Re: Characters (4) From: Sheryl Sawin Date: Thursday, 29 Feb 96 13:19:49 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0134 Qs: Odor/Weddings (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 21:04:11 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0141 Works Attributed to Shakespeare >I need to find sources which discuss works attributed erroneously to >Shakespeare. Does anyone have any suggestions? Any help would be appreciated. > >Michael Norman >University of North Carolina at Greensboro There's been a fair amount written about the Shakespeare Apocrypha; a good place to start is C.F. Tucker Brooke's 1908 edition of *The Shakespeare Apocrypha*. William Kozlenko also edited a book in 1974 called *Disputed Plays of William Shakespeare*, and there's other stuff out there. Some of this deals with plays which many scholars think Shakespeare wrote at least part of (e.g. Sir Thomas More, Edward III), and some of it deals with plays that were attributed to him at some point but which virtually nobody believes he wrote (e.g. Locrine, Sir John Oldcastle, The Puritan). Also, if you can find back issues of *The Shakespeare Newsletter*, that has had a lot over the years about various works attributed to Shakespeare with arguments pro and con. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tunis Romein Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 23:38:21 -0500 Subject: Othello: Christian or Moslem? Iago says this of Othello in his last soliloquy of Act II, the one beginning "And what's he then that says I play the villain. . . . " And then for her To win the Moor--were 't to renounce his baptism, All seals and symbols of redeemed sin-- His soul is so enfettered to her love That she may make, unmake, do what she list . . . . So Iago evidently considers Othello a Christian. Also, judging by Othello's words just before his suicide, he couldn't be a Moslem. He speaks of once killing a "turbaned Turk": I took by th' throat the circumcised dog And smote him, thus. [He stabs himself.] That's not the kind of language one Moslem would use to refer to another. Tunis Romein Charleston, SC USA romeint@awod.com (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Lee Date: Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 08:57:27 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0139 Re: Characters > What Bowlen, and others seem unable or > unwilling to concede is that their very notion of "character" imposed on a > Shakespearean text produces an anachronism. As John Drakakis says, the notion of 'character' lies at the heart of this debate. However, whether or not 'character' (i.e. the modern notion of character as interior and self-constituted inner life, as opposed to the Elizabethan notion of character as appearance, qv complexion) is anachronistic is a debate, not a self-evident fact. As the modern vocabulary of meaning bound up with the modern sense of character is absent from Shakespearean plays, the argument for anachronism is nice and direct. To argue the reverse brings us to the question of whether a concept can exist before the vocabulary exists to express it. One critic who examines this question directly, and comes to the conclusion that there is an inner life to which our modern terminologies bound up with character may be intelligibly applied is Anne Ferry, _The Inward Language: Sonnets of Wyatt, Sidney, Shakespeare and Donne_ (1983). I would also have thought Joel Altman's more recent _Shakespeare's Perjured Eye_ supports this position, finding Shakespeare to have instituted the 'subjectivity effects' from which modern 'character' is created. This debate, rightly, could run and run. One consensus that might be reached, is that -- as John Drakakis suggests -- 'character' should not be taught as a given, but rather historicized, and shown to be a complex word whose meaning has developed and changed, greatly, over time. Yours, John Lee (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sheryl Sawin Date: Thursday, 29 Feb 96 13:19:49 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0134 Qs: Odor/Weddings In response to Michael Best's inquiries: 1. There seems to be a widespread belief that the Elizabethans did not wash, and that they (the nobility at any rate) covered their bodily smells with perfume rather than bathing. The poorer classes presumably simply stank. Is there any evidence to support this assertion? 2. Did the marriage rituals of the time conclude with some kind of charivari -- the awakening of the bedded couple with noise or other kinds of celebration / torment? Again, I've seen this referred to, but never with any kind of contemporary reference. -------------- 1. I'm not sure about the odor thing... but try the multi volume series on Private Life (the volume on the Renaissance), put out a few years back. 2. As for the marriage rituals, George Puttenham describes something like what you are after (making noise outside the room, throwing walnuts on the ground and the like) in the _Arte of English Poesy_. I THINK it is in book two--although I haven't read it in a while. Hope these admittedly vague suggestions help. Sheryl Sawin St. Joseph's University, PA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 21:40:39 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0149 Qs: Pronunciation of "th"; Video of Duchess of Malfi Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0149. Thursday, 29 February 1996. (1) From: Al Cacicedo Date: Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 14:11:54 -0500 (EST) Subj: Pronunciation of "th" (2) From: Al Cacicedo Date: Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 14:16:01 -0500 (EST) Subj: Video of Duchess of Malfi (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Al Cacicedo Date: Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 14:11:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Pronunciation of "th" Dear SHAKSPERians, I am very puzzled about something that I "knew" as a graduate- school commonplace, the pronunciation of "th" as an interdental stop rather than an interdental fricative in words such as "Moth," the character in _LLL_, or "Nothing," which leads to such nice ambiguities in _Much Ado_. Is it *always* the case that "th" is a stop rather than a fricative? Should one pronounce "thing" as if it were "ting"? Hanging by a thorn (or is that "torn"?), Al Cacicedo (alc@joe.alb.edu) Albright College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Al Cacicedo Date: Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 14:16:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Video of Duchess of Malfi Dear SHAKSPERians, Over a decade ago I remember seeing a BBC (I think) production of _Duchess of Malfi_ on PBS. This was in the Boston area, and the station was WGBH. I've tried to find a video of the film, but it's listed nowhere, and PBS says they know nothing about it. Does anyone know if there is such a video (was I hallucinating all those years ago?) and whether it's available at all in the US? Thanks, Al Cacicedo (alc@joe.alb.edu) Albright College ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 21:42:55 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0150 Restoration Culture List Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0150. Thursday, 29 February 1996. From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 15:47:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Restoration Culture I would like to announce the formation of a new listserv group for the discussion of Restoration Culture, which can include all aspects of cultural expression in the Restoration period (however that period may be defined). Subscribers need to send the message "SUBSCRIBE RESTORATION [YOUR NAME]" to . Because we are a new group we have few participants, so we would appreciate any cross-posting of this message or forwarding to potentially interested parties. For more information e-mail me at . Simon Morgan-Russell Department of English Bowling Green State University========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 10:05:19 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0151 They Once Were Lost But Now They're Found Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0151. Saturday, 2 March 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Saturday, March 2, 1996 Subject: They Once Were Lost But Now They're Found SHAKSPEReans: SHAKSPER's move has not been without its difficulties. The initial setup was far more complicated than the System Manager and I had expected. Then I discovered that the Unix version of LISTSERV does not as yet include all of the commands of the VM versions that I was used to, so I have had to reconsider some of the procedures I have used to run the conference. To top it off, Bowie State is undergoing a technological makeover of enormous proportions. The System Manager has been preoccupied with setting up to new computer laboratories funded from a multi-million dollars NSA grant, while the entire campus is being wired for a client-sever environment. I have been virtually on my own handling technical problems -- Oh the Unix I have had to learn. We still have not solved the addressing problem that some of us have, but I hope the fix will be in soon. Further, some posting have gotten lost. Below are two that I have just recovered. Struggling along, Hardy ******************************************************************************* (1) From: Chris Fassler Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 1996 10:37:46 -0500 Subj: Development of Individualism (2) From: Albert Misseldine Date: Friday, 23 Feb 1996 09:51:22 -0500 Subj: Macbeth detail (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Fassler Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 1996 10:37:46 -0500 Subject: Development of Individualism Colleagues, This question first interested me at grad school while we were discussing the play-within-the-play from _Hamlet_, specifically Gertrude's remarks about the player queen's sincerety in professing her faithfulness to the player king. At some point in the conversation, I began thinking about Decartes, and this question occured to me: what if an early modern writer had translated "Cogito ergo sum" as "Methinks; therefore I am"? Or, alternatively, what if Gertrude says, "I think she's full of it"? The hypothetical translation is probably absurd, but my question about such reflexive (correct term?) constructions remains. "Methinks" and similar constructions in earlier English, in classical Latin, and in modern Russian--to name a few examples--seem to me to challenge most of our most cherished notions of selfhood, not to mention what thought and thinkers are. Until this strand began on SHAKSPER, the question of Decartes remained a memory. Now I'm interested again. Anyone else? Sincerely, Chris Fassler, Winthrop University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Albert Misseldine Date: Friday, 23 Feb 1996 09:51:22 -0500 Subject: Macbeth detail Query: What is the doctor in the sleepwalking scene using to take notes with? He can't be carrying a quill and ink, can he? Cheers. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 10:26:56 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0152 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0152. Saturday, 2 March 1996. (1) From: Moray McConnachie Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 11:31:15 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0147 Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 07:15:04 -0800 Subj: Funeral Elegy (3) From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Saturday, 2 Mar 1996 02:59:57 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0142 Re: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Moray McConnachie Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 11:31:15 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0147 Re: Funeral Elegy > There is no such thing as an elegaic poem. > > Judy Kennedy > St.Thomas University Why ever not? It is a tautology, but elegaic has a distinct meaning now. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 07:15:04 -0800 Subject: Funeral Elegy Don Foster compares John Ford's CHRIST'S BLOODY SWEAT (1613) to the W.S. FUNERAL ELEGY of 1612. He says that the SWEAT "is the first of many texts in which John Ford borrows from both Shakespeare and W.S., and the most insistant." Foster gives a score of examples of this "extensive borrowing," but never questions that John Ford might himself have written the ELEGY. Why is that, for it's certainly not a farfetched theory? John Ford was an acquaintance of William Peter, both Don Foster and Richard Abrams say it is difficult to doubt that. They had mutual friends in the theater, and Abrams tells us that Ford was a Devonshire neighbor of the Peter family, and that Ford's cousin ("and virtual stepbrother") attended Oxford with William Peter, the deceased. And yet Don Foster does not tumble. Why not consider Ford as the author of the ELEGY. He was in the right place at the right time and had the right sort of talent for it. He also wrote FAMES MEMORIAL, on the Earle of Devonshire deceased. 1606. So he was active in the Devonshire elegy trade. What's to prevent him being the author of the ELEGY? The initials, W.S.? If that is all, that's not much. Ford was a dramatist as well, which fits in well with Foster's line, "In his role as elegist, W.S. invites us to believe that his usual mode is that of writing for the public theater." Don Foster says that "only three writers can be shown to have read W.S.'s ELEGY: William Shakespeare, John Ford, and Simon Wastrell." As to Shakespeare, that's to be proved or disproved. As to Ford, being a family friend, I grant that he read the thing. As to Simon Wastrell, I've not yet read anything by the man, but Foster says he stole lines from the ELEGY. Of these three, John Ford seems an obvious suspect as the author of the ELEGY. Don Foster gives the proof himself: here are some comparisons, the ELEGY with John Ford's CHRIST'S BLOODY SWEAT. Elegy: by seeming reason underpropped CBS: which life, death underprops Elegy: Now runs the method of this doleful song CBS: Set then the tenor of thy doleful song Elegy: A rock of friendship figured in his name. CBS: A rock of torment, which affliction bears Elegy: That lives encompassed in a mortal frame CBS: For whiles encompassed in a fleshly frame Elegy: Unhappy matter of a mourning style CBS: The happy matter of a moving style Elegy: So in his mischiefs is the world accurs'd:/ It picks out matter to inform the worst. CBS: For so is prone mortality accursed/ As still it strives to plot and work the worst Elegy: But tasted of the sour-bitter scourge/ Of torture and affliction CBS: Drew comfort from the sour-bitter gall/ Of his afflictions But I need not afflict ourselves with more of this. Don Foster gives some twenty examples, some of them not too well- chosen, but the mediocrity is very similiar, I agree with him, neither one of the poets had much to say. Foster presents these examples to help his case, to explain how John Ford borrowed from the ELEGY when he wrote CHRIST'S BLOODY SWEAT a year later. It would seem to me that John Ford wasn't so much borrowing, but wrote the ELEGY himself, and was stuck somewhat in the same rut when he wrote CHRIST'S BLOODY SWEAT. I say it's a very reasonable theory, Ford being a friend of the Peter family. Has the Shaxicon program been run against John Ford? It seems obvious that it must be done before going any further with theories more removed from Devonshire. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Saturday, 2 Mar 1996 02:59:57 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0142 Re: Funeral Elegy There's been a little crossing of messages in cyberspace, so let me respond to some of the comments on the Funeral Elegy from a couple of days ago. Porter Jamison asks: >What is known of the man who died? Was he married in 1603? Did he have >children? If the answer to either of these is "no", then the poem wasn't >written in 1612 about this particular man... I'm not quite sure what Mr. Jamison is getting at here, but to answer his questions: Will Peter was a student at Oxford off and on from 1599 to 1608, with several extended leaves of absence. In the fall of 1608 he withdrew from the University, and on January 9, 1609, he married Margaret Brewton. They had two daughters, named Rose and Margaret, before Will was murdered on January 25, 1612. As for Mr. Jamison's query about the poem's vocabulary, Don Foster has studied this in great detail, both in his book (pp. 93-105) and in soon-to-be-published SHAXICON work. To make a long story short, the Elegy has a very high correlation with Shakespeare's vocabulary, including numerous words rarely used by other contemporary writers and unusual uses of more common words. Now, as to the feminine endings. Gabriel Egan is skeptical of my explanation of differences between rhymed and blank verse in this regard, and asks, "What evidence is there that the decision to use rhyme makes a poet less likely to use feminine endings?" Well, for one thing, if you take a bunch of rhymed verse and a bunch of blank verse by any given Elizabethan poet, you will in virtually every case find that the rhymed verse has a much lower percentage of feminine endings than the blank verse. This is especially true of the type of rather formal rhymed verse typically found in elegies. Let me give some concrete examples. George Chapman, in his (primarily blank verse) play *Bussy D'Ambois* (1608), had over 20 percent feminine endings; yet his (rhymed) Funeral Song for Prince Henry (1612) had only 6.3 percent feminine endings. Francis Beaumont, in *The Knight of the Burning Pestle* (1608) (also blank verse), also had over 20 percent feminine endings, yet in his (rhymed) elegies for Lady Rutland and Lady Penelope Clifton (1612), he did not have a single feminine ending in 180 lines. All the published English elegaic verse between 1610 and 1613 has a total of 5.4 percent feminine-ending lines, according to the figures in Foster's book; plays written during the same period typically had 20-30 percent feminine endings, according to the figures from Ward Elliott and Robert Valenza's Shakespeare Clinic. Now, whatever the reason might have been, it's clear that rhymed verse had significantly fewer feminine endings than blank verse; comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. Shakespeare's use of rhyme in his plays declined steadily throughout his career, and so there is little rhymed verse in the late plays for comparison; what there is, though, is comparable to the Elegy in terms of feminine endings. As I noted before, the 11.6 percent feminine endings in the Elegy fits in fairly well with Shakespeare's non-dramatic (rhymed) verse, which has a total of 10.5 percent feminine endings. This is broken down as follows: Venus and Adonis 15.7 Lucrece 10.7 Phoenix & Turtle 9.0 Sonnets 7.7 Lover's Complaint 8.8 Bill Godshalk asserts that this non-dramatic poetry is all "basically early", and that we should thus be cautious about using these numbers for comparison with the Elegy. Maybe so, but there's much room to doubt the traditional view that this poetry is all early; in particular, I've become convinced that the Sonnets were primarily written around the turn of the century or later, and that *A Lover's Complaint* was mostly written c.1608, right before the publication of the Sonnets (cf., e.g., John Kerrigan's Penguin edition of the Sonnets, and the article by Hieatt, Bishop, and Nicholson in Notes & Queries, June 1987, p.219). If anything, Shakespeare's use of feminine endings in rhymed verse seems to have decreased, rather than increased, over time. But even if you believe that this poetry was all relatively early, I don't see any reason to think that the Elegy should differ from it in feminine endings. The use of feminine endings in blank verse increased steadily among English poets in general between the 1580s and the 1620s, just as the use of enjambment increased steadily in the same period; Shakespeare followed both of these trends. However, there was no corresponding increase in feminine endings in rhymed verse; recall the figures I cited earlier for elegaic verse between 1610 and 1613, which are generally low. The rhymed verse in Shakespeare's late plays has many fewer feminine endings than the blank verse in the same plays, though in the earlier plays rhymed and blank verse had similar amounts of feminine endings. Ideally we would like to have an example of undisputedly late rhymed verse by Shakespeare to compare with the Elegy; since we don't, we have to do the best we can with what we have. For the reasons outlined above, Shakespeare's nondramatic rhymed verse, though not ideal, is a much better standard for comparing feminine endings than is the blank verse of his later plays. Whew. I'd better stop now, though more could be said. Comments welcome. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 10:32:51 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0153 Re: Characters Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0153. Saturday, 2 March 1996. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 01 Mar 1996 07:11:38 -0500 (EST) Subj: Reply to Drakakis on Character (2) From: W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Date: Friday, 01 Mar 1996 09:20:07 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0148 Re: Characters (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 01 Mar 1996 07:11:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reply to Drakakis on Character Just rereading John Drakakis's excellant post again... and I'm glad he brings up questions of ideological assumptions. It seems to me, however, that one need not appeal to S's different historical period to account for these however. On one level, it's more of a generic question. The difference between the novel and plays is precisely the open-ended quality of the form. Of course, saying that is seems that Shakespeare's work "exploits" the gap (aporia) more than say Ben Jonson. Another way of saying this is that Shakespeare leaves the "essence" of his characters to "others"---(a less generous way is that he passes the buck). But this is what Shakes shares with Brecht in certain ways---yet "the critical attitude" is often considered less the point about S's plays than "wonder" (just as "the alienation effect" is often seen as less the point than "mimesis"---even though the "making nature afraid" aspects of his plays (of which Jonson spoke) certainly seems to me not only to question the REALITY of CHARACTERS as PEOPLE, but also the reality and validity of representing ourselves strictly in terms of the restricted economy of the human. Perhaps this IS historical, insofar as the novelistic sense of character Drakakis detects in recent posts is often considered a product of the 19th century "realism" retrospectively imposed on Shakespeare, and challenged by certain 20th c. trends that in certain ways (certainly not all---especially in respects to gender) are more like Elizabethan questioning of autonomous or even adequate individuation.......Chris Stroffolino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Date: Friday, 01 Mar 1996 09:20:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0148 Re: Characters I'd like to add a few words to John Lee's post on character. First, along with Ferry and Altman's work, I would recommend Katharine Maus' recent _Inwardness . . . Theatre_. Maus discusses some of these same issues and addresses the question of the vocabulary used to describe an inner self in the 16th and 17th centuries. Lee also questions: > As the modern vocabulary of meaning bound up with the modern sense of > character is absent from Shakespearean plays, the argument for anachronism > is nice and direct. To argue the reverse brings us to the question of > whether a concept can exist before the vocabulary exists to express it. I believe Patricia Meyer Spacks book on Boredom in the 18th century addresses a related issue: how the invention of a new vocabulary might alter ideas about individuality, society, etc. W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Department of Literature and Language University of North Carolina at Asheville ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 11:01:11 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0154 Re: Video of Duchess of Malfi Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0154. Saturday, 2 March 1996. (1) From: John Boni Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 08:24:15 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0149 Qs: Video of Duchess of Malfi (2) From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 09:40:24 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0149 Qs: Video of Duchess of Malfi (3) From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Friday, 01 Mar 96 09:49:00 PST Subj: Duchess Film (4) From: Kevin J. Donovan Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 09:21:37 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: Video of Duchess of Malfi (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 08:24:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0149 Qs: Video of Duchess of Malfi RE: Al Cacicedo's query on tv production of *Duchess of Malfi*, I seem to remember a pretty good production, perhaps when I lived in Boston as well (the early '60s) with Janes Suzman in the title role. So, I can at lest confirm the phenomenon, though not help locate it. John Boni (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 09:40:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0149 Qs: Video of Duchess of Malfi Dear Al Cacicedo, You're not hallucinating. The PBS Duchess of Malfi appeared on the airwaves in 1975, after first being shown on the BBC on 10 October 1972. It was reviewed by David Carnegie in the now defunct Shakespeare on Film Newsletter Vol. 12 no. 1 (Dec. 1987). SFNL is available at the Folger in a bound volume and other libraries as well. Unfortunately Carnegie's piece does not give the exact date of transmission in the USA, but surely PBS must have some record of it. Unless of course it has the same attitude as the BBC which once airily dismissed my inquiries with the statement that "The BBC exists to transmit not to preserve." Ken Rothwell (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Friday, 01 Mar 96 09:49:00 PST Subject: Duchess Film In reply to Al Cacicedo's film, I remember a wonderful series on public television in the late sixties or early seventies that included "Duchess of Malfi," Edward II," a modern play about Milton starring John Neville and titled something like "Paradise Regained", and I believe, "She Stoops to Conquer." I also remember seeing a collected volume of all these plays printed, but haven't been able to find the publication information. Maybe these clues will help PBS identify the series! (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kevin J. Donovan Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 09:21:37 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Video of Duchess of Malfi Al-- You're not hallucinating. I saw that same production in '78 or '79. As I recall, WGBH also broadcast productions of Marlowe's Edward II and Goldsmith's She Stoops to Conquer that same season, apparently as part of a series. I too have looked in vain for any sign of the existence of these productions on video and would welcome news of them. Kevin ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 11:09:43 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0155 Re: Staging *Tmp.*; Weddings; Educational Videos Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0155. Saturday, 2 March 1996. (1) From: Bob Leslie <8913241l@arts.gla.ac.uk> Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 13:32:49 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0143 Qs: *Tmp.* (2) From: Katherine Rowe Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 11:31:33 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0148 Weddings, noisy rituals (3) From: Jeff Kean Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 13:54:31 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0140 Re: Educational Videos (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Leslie <8913241l@arts.gla.ac.uk> Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 13:32:49 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0143 Qs: *Tmp.* Re Rod Osiowy's enquiries about the staging of *The Tempest*. As far as immersing himself in the background to the play is concerned, he would do well to read Katherine Lea's description of its Commedia dell'Arte roots in *Italian Popular Comedy* (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934) - particularly Volume 2 and/or (if he reads Italian) Ferdinando Neri's *Scenari delle maschere in Arcadia* (Citta di Castello 1913; reprinted Turin, 1961). This might tempt him to go for a broader and more forthright interpretation than the all-too-common dream-like atmosphere which, in my opinion, strangles all possibilities for outright comedy and severely diminishes Prospero's standing as a figure of danger. The worst recent example of this was *Prospero's Books* in which the double recitation of the dialogue put the comic sub-cast at one remove from its public and thus robbed their performance of any life it may have possessed. Gielgud's magician was similarly rendered anodyne and distant and the idea of magic as dangerous to both body and soul thereby diluted. In the opinion of this critic, the much-praised grotesqueries of scenery and characterisation, instead of lending force to the production, turned it into a dreary tableau vivant reducing the action to tedium. Why not make the comedy rough and aggressive, Caliban overtly and lecherously satyric, and Prospero a real figure of frightening power? This would provide the Lovers, often submerged in the general insipidity of production, with a useful set of dramatic contrasts to act against and the villains of the piece with an antagonist worthy of fear and respect. It would also stress the magnitude of Prospero's gesture as he abandons his rod and book for his temporal duties. Bob Leslie North Glasgow College Scotland (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Katherine Rowe Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 11:31:33 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0148 Weddings, noisy rituals >In response to Michael Best's inquiry: > Did the marriage rituals of the time conclude with some kind of charivari -- >the awakening of the bedded couple with noise or other kinds of celebration / >torment? Again, I've seen this referred to, but never with any kind of >contemporary reference. It might be useful to look at Spenser's *Epithalamion,* for the noisy refrains. Best, Katherine Rowe Assistant Professor Yale University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Kean Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 13:54:31 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0140 Re: Educational Videos The best set of videos I have ever come across is the 11 part BBC series "Playing Shakespeare" hosted and written by John Barton. It involves actors from the RSC discussing and performing excerpts to illustrate specific topics. Many of the actors in the series have gone on to wider recognition( Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellan). Any University Audio/Video catalogue should have it. I viewed it first through the Penn State Univ. library system and have since obtained my own copies. If the whole set is beyond your financial capacity, the first two tapes give an excellent overview of interpreting and performing Shakespeare. The following nine are on specific topics. Good luck! Jeff Kean ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 11:41:19 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0156 Re: Othello's Religion Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0156. Saturday, 2 March 1996. (1) From: Chris Fassler Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 11:27:40 -0500 Subj: Othello: Muslim or Christian? (2) From: Ian H. Doescher Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 19:35:57 -0500 (EST) Subj: Othello's religion (3) From: Susan Mather Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 21:42:19 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0143 Qs: *Oth.* (4) From: Daniel Vitkus Date: Saturday, 2 Mar 1996 12:45:32 GMT Subj: RE: SHK 7.0143 Qs: *Oth.* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Fassler Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 11:27:40 -0500 Subject: Othello: Muslim or Christian? Regarding Tunis Romein's comments on what he takes to be textual evidence of Othello's Christianity: These questions and the ways we answer them certainly bear on the issues under discussion on the character track. What does it mean to write in an academic setting that Othello was a Christian (or a Muslim)? What effects do playing and costuming Othello as a Muslim (or Christian) have on the presentation and reception of the performance? Aside from those interesting questions, however, I wonder about inter- preting the Romein's chosen lines as he does. In the first instance, Iago's language can easily be taken as a metaphor, common and powerful enough in the pervasively Christian culture of early modern London. Perhaps the metaphor is inevitable, regardless of the particular religious preferences that writers, performers, or audience members would have associated with the figure of the Moor. In any case, I wonder if any but a very select few early modern Englishmen could have constructed metaphors usefully indicative of Islamic faith--apart from some off-handed references to "Mohamet" (e.g. _Tamburlaine_) or some glib reference to circumcision (readily applicable to Jews as well). (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian H. Doescher Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 19:35:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Othello's religion Caroline Gebhard wonders whether or not Othello is a converted Christian. There is a line suggesting that perhaps Othello is a Christian when, telling Montano and Cassio to stop fighting, he says "For Christian shame put by this barbarous brawl!" (II.iii.162). However, the key issue I think depends on when the play is set. Muslims had control in Sicily in the middle 1400s, and therefore if the play is set before that time we may be prone to believe that Othello is a Muslim. It is likely, though, the play is meant to be set after Muslim control in Sicily. One reason is that Shakespeare's source for the play is an Italian play called "Heccatommithi," published in 1565, well after the Muslim control. Also, considering that Othello is fighting the Turkish fleet, it seems more likely that he is Christian, as he is fighting for the Christian cause against the Muslims. Finally, if the play is indeed set after the 1400s, it is unlikely that a Muslim would be allowed a position of nobility in a Christian society, especially one that had recently rid themselves of Muslim control. Ian Doescher (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 21:42:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0143 Qs: *Oth.* I realize that the list will receive many answers to this question on Othello's Christian beliefs. I have always thought that Othello chose to assimilate with the Venetian culture and that he believes himself to be Christian, having taken on the beliefs of this culture as his own. I wrote a paper on this that I titled, "Reading the texts of Desdemona and Othello" (or something like that) and I argued that the two characters become trapped in this foreign discourse that limits them in their expression, i.e. spiritually or otherwise. Also, Othello knows his Scriptures for he uses them to defend his right to murder Desdemona. I realize that this does not mean he's a Christian; it might mean that this is his cover though. Cheers, Susan Mather smather@phoenix.kent.edu (4)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Vitkus Date: Saturday, 2 Mar 1996 12:45:32 GMT Subject: RE: SHK 7.0143 Qs: *Oth.* Othello is clearly identified as a Christian in Shakespeare's play. Of course, as a Moor he cannot escape being identified with the Muslims of the early modernMediterranean, and by the end of the play he "turns Turk," one might say. Thus, at the end, Othello kills the infidel enemy to Venice that he has become. The Christian language of damnation and salvation is central to the text, but whether Othello was born a Muslim or not is not stated specifically. Christian anxieties about conversion and the Islamic Other are played out in the "conversion" of Othello. I have not seen the Fishburne film, so I can't commenton the Muslim rites performed therein. D. Vitkus ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 11:43:56 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0157 Irvin Matus Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0157. Saturday, 2 March 1996. From: John Mucci Date: Friday, 1 Mar 1996 16:30:41 -0500 Subject: Irvin Matus There were a number of scattered postings in the last few months concerning Irvin Matus and his reversal of fortunes. I happened to be at WGBH (Boston's PBS station) last week, and in talking with the producer of *Frontline*, mentioned the fact. She was startled as could be, mentioning she had just got off the phone with Matus, and while he was calling from a cellular phone, it certainly didn't sound as though he were homeless. Is someone playing a very cruel joke? *Frontline* of course is going to be rebroadcasting their authorship piece, called "THE SHAKESPEARE MYSTERY" and I am helping them to link their webpage on it with VisNet's UNCOVERING SHAKESPEARE page. If there is some animosity toward Matus because of his viewpoint, I think it's misapplied to say the least. J. Mucci GTE VisNet ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 15:42:35 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0158 Re: Video of Duchess of Malfi Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0158. Monday, 4 March 1996. (1) From: Tad Davis Date: Saturday, 2 Mar 1996 11:42:01 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0154 Re: Video of Duchess of Malfi (2) From: Keith Richards Date: Saturday, 13 Jan 1996 12:06:39 -0800 Subj: Duchess of Malfi video (3) From: Edward Rocklin Date: Saturday, 02 Mar 1996 16:28:30 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0154 Re: Video of Duchess of Malfi (4) From: Harry Rusche Date: Monday, 4 Mar 1996 12:58:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0154 Re: Video of Duchess of Malfi (5) From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 4 Mar 1996 12:48:34 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0154 Re: Video of Duchess of Malfi (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Davis Date: Saturday, 2 Mar 1996 11:42:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0154 Re: Video of Duchess of Malfi The video series in question was called "Classic Theatre." The playtexts appeared in an anthology around the same time as the series on PBS. Unfortunately I don't remember much more than that, except that the production of "Duchess of Malfi" was absorbing and well-done. Tad Davis (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith Richards Date: Saturday, 13 Jan 1996 12:06:39 -0800 Subject: Duchess of Malfi video In response to Al's question (sorry, I deleted the original message; otherwise I would have e-mailed directly). I saw that video a year ago in a class at the University of British Columbia. I will e-mail the professor, as he obviously found a way to get a copy of that tape. Please send your e-mail address along to me. Keith Richards Graduate Studies in English McGill University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Rocklin Date: Saturday, 02 Mar 1996 16:28:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0154 Re: Video of Duchess of Malfi Just adding to Georgiana Ziegler's reply to Al Cacicedo: There certainly was a collected volume for this series, a big hardback I believe, perhaps even meant to be a textbook. It also seems to me that there was an earlier discussion of the "Duchess" on SHAKSPER, maybe a year ago, and one posting, I think, had fuller information. (There is also the Caedmon recording, which I have on LP--has that been reissued on cassette?) Surely some libraries have the volume? Edward Rocklin (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Rusche Date: Monday, 4 Mar 1996 12:58:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0154 Re: Video of Duchess of Malfi Emory owns that production of _Duchess of Malfi_ done in the '70s. Unfortunately, when we bought for audio-visual collections in was on the old 3/4 inch tape, and I don't think it has been released on VHS. I still use it occasionally in my classes. If anyone would like< I can check the information on the tape and let you all know. Harry Rusche Emory University (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 4 Mar 1996 12:48:34 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0154 Re: Video of Duchess of Malfi News of another - which was on kine and is now on video, deposited with the National Archives of Canada. Produced for CBC in early 60s. Producer Mario Prizek. Francis Hyland was the Duchess, Doug Rain was Bosola and most of the Stratford company of that time is in it. There are pictures and a brief account of the production in my * Turn Up the Contrast: CBC TV drama since 1952* UBC Press 1987. I do not have a personal copy but saw it on kine I have been sayingfor some time that there would be a market for this on video. If enough of the people on this list e-mailed me I might [in april or May] be able to explore such a possibility with the CBC - although after my next book out in May they maynot be speaking to me. Alternatively - everyone interested write to Jim Byrd Vice President of CBC Television , Box 500 Station A Toronto , M5W 1E6 - and point out the international market for this. It's black and white, edited [ of course] and, I think, brilliant, Mary Jane Miller, Dept. of Film Studies, Dramatic and Visual Arts, Brock University, ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:06:50 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0159 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0159. Monday, 4 March 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 02 Mar 1996 23:01:41 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0152 Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Saturday, 2 Mar 1996 15:32:08 -0800 Subj: Funeral Elegy (3) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 3 Mar 1996 17:51:15 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0152 Re: Funeral Elegy (4) From: Harry Hill Date: Sunday, 03 Mar 1996 15:40:34 +0000 (HELP) Subj: re elegy (5) From: David Evett Date: Monday, 04 Mar 1996 10:34 ET Subj: SHK 7.0142 Re: Funeral Elegy (6) From: Judy Kennedy Date: Monday, 4 Mar 1996 15:04:27 AST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0152 Re: Funeral Elegy (7) From: David Evett Date: Monday, 04 Mar 1996 14:52 ET Subj: SHK 7.0142 Re: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 02 Mar 1996 23:01:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0152 Re: Funeral Elegy > Venus and Adonis 15.7 (1592-93) > Lucrece 10.7 (1593-94) > Phoenix & Turtle 9.0 (1601) > Sonnets 7.7 (1593-1603) > Lover's Complaint 8.8 (1603-4) > >Bill Godshalk asserts that this non-dramatic poetry is all "basically early", >and that we should thus be cautious about using these numbers for comparison >with the Elegy. Maybe so, but there's much room to doubt the traditional view >that this poetry is all early; in particular, I've become convinced that the >Sonnets were primarily written around the turn of the century or later, and >that *A Lover's Complaint* was mostly written c.1608, right before the >publication of the Sonnets (cf., e.g., John Kerrigan's Penguin edition of the >Sonnets, and the article by Hieatt, Bishop, and Nicholson in Notes & Queries, >June 1987, p.219). If anything, Shakespeare's use of feminine endings in >rhymed verse seems to have decreased, rather than increased, over time. I've added some dates (from the Oxford Textual Companion and Bevington) to Dave Kathman's list of poems. The first two long poems have to be early because they were printed and published early. We can argue about the dating of the sonnets -- and why not? But the sonnets seem to have a direct relationship to the early plays. *The Phoenix and Turtle* had to have been written before it was published in 1601, and that leaves the *Lover's Complaint.* The Oxford editors obviously want to place Shakespeare's non-dramatic poetry in a ten year period (1593-1603). If Shakespeare's career is divided into two parts with 1600 as the dividing line, then, if we accept the Oxford dating, the poems are basically early. But my major point is that we should not mix our criteria of judgment in ascribing FE to Shakespeare or anyone else. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Saturday, 2 Mar 1996 15:32:08 -0800 Subject: Funeral Elegy David Kathman defends a point not brought into question: No one has suggested that the W.S. initials on the Funeral Elegy are misprints. The question is, is W.S. William Shakespeare? He adds that "The initials are just one piece of evidence, and the other evidence of Shakespeare's hand would not change if the elegy were totally anonymous." I entirely agree. If the thing were signed "William Shakespeare, Sweet Swan of Avon," I still wouldn't believe the bard wrote it. As Kathman says, it wouldn't change the poem, wouldn't help it a bit, and I agree. That's the trouble and the fundamental question. David Kathman calls the writer of the Elegy an "accomplished poet." No one else has dared to say so much for the unknown W.S.. I'll agree that the writer was an accomplished "rhymer," or an accomplished "versifier," but hardly an accomplished poet. It's a third-rate piece of work. The Shaxicon program is the solitary voice singing over this barren poem, this wilderness of rhyme and versification What Don Foster needs is for some first-rate poets to champion the Elegy, but none have thrown their reputations that way yet. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 3 Mar 1996 17:51:15 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0152 Re: Funeral Elegy David Kathman has shifted his ground significantly: >Gabriel Egan is skeptical of my explanation >of differences between rhymed and blank verse in this regard, and asks, "What >evidence is there that the decision to use rhyme makes a poet less likely to >use feminine endings?" Well, for one thing, if you take a bunch of rhymed >verse and a bunch of blank verse by any given Elizabethan poet, you will in >virtually every case find that the rhymed verse has a much lower percentage of >feminine endings than the blank verse. Kathman formerly offered an explanation for the relative rarity of feminine endings in rhymed verse: > the nature of rhyme (with its emphasis on the end of the line) tends to > discourage feminine endings (with their unstressed final syllable) [Posting of 20 Feb] But now Kathman merely asserts that: >whatever the reason might have been, it's clear that rhymed verse had >significantly fewer feminine endings than blank verse; comparing the two is >like comparing apples and oranges. [Posting of 2 March] I suggest that an explanation for the different frequencies of feminine endings is vitally important and that without it stylometrics cannot be of use on the subject. Kathman's explanation in terms of rhyme alone seems quite invalid to me. I suspect he dropped it because he saw that rhyming feminine endings is not too difficult, and that in any case an argument based on the difficulty of finding such rhymes would be objectionable on the grounds that a particular piece of text might simply have taken greater effort to produce. Surely the significance of feminine endings is that they are necessarily extra-metrical. Might not some determinant other than rhyme be responsible for the relatively high correlation of blank verse and feminine endings? A poetic context which makes a poet choose to use rhyme might be one which also (but not therefore) discourages extra-metrical effects. In such a conjecture, in which Kathman's causal relation between rhyme and feminine endings is rejected, the averages used by him are invalid. An analysis of the different poetic contexts, the 'pears' to his 'apples and oranges', would be called for. I do not understand why Kathman considers the 12 line song of Juno and Ceres in The Tempest (4.1.106) to have "every line...deliberately feminine". It is trochaic tetrameter throughout, with no extra-metrical lines. Gabriel Egan (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Sunday, 03 Mar 1996 15:40:34 +0000 (HELP) Subject: re elegy The CD containing my reading of the Elegy will be ready by the end of this month. In rehearsing it, my director Paul Hawkins of Concordia has brought me to realize that there may well be two authors, as the first hundred lines or so are much less accomplished than the rest. I have grown to like the poem very much through greater familiarity with its methods and spots of really fine concreteness. Ed Pechter at my university will be taking some of the disks to the Shakespeare Congress in April. More later... Harry Hill Montreal (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 04 Mar 1996 10:34 ET Subject: SHK 7.0142 Re: Funeral Elegy I'm so glad Richard J. Kennedy has identified himself to the rest of us as the infallible arbiter of poetic excellence in our time; it is so comforting to know that when we have a question about quality we need only send him a few samples of the text, disburdened of any of those tedious questions about context and audience and so on, and he will return us an absolutely reliable evaluation by return email. And I am so glad to learn from him that Don Foster invented the term "plain style," just in order to defend his tentative attribution of "A Funeral Elegy" to Shakespeare. Foster must, indeed, have done it a while ago, for I find this paragraph in _Stylists on Style_, by my colleague and friend Louis T. Milic, Jr., published in 1969: "there have long been two tendencies, one of which is called the Plain Style; its opposite has no standard name, though Cyril Connolly . . . has called it the _Mandarin_ style. . . . In a sense, the Plain Style is a way of distrusting the artifice of language" (344.) I had, indeed, thought to find the phrase in Yvor Winters' essays on Elizabethan lyric poetry (_Poetry_, 53:258-72, 320-25; 59:35-51 (1939), reprinted in Paul J. Alpers, ed., _Elizabethan Poetry: Modern Essays in Criticism_ [N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1967], 93-125), and was a little surprised to find that the phrase "plain style" does not actually appear in his text, through the adjective, applied to work by Gascoigne, Wyatt, Ralegh, and others, appears repeatedly." Nor could I find it in a quick search of such C16 rhetorical texts as I could quickly lay my hand on, though to be sure George Puttenham does say, in the section of _The Arte of English Poesie_ (1589) called "Of Stile", "therefore there be that haue called stile, the image of man. . . for man is but his minde, and as his minde is tempered and qualified, so are all his speeches and language at large, and his inward conceits be the mettall of his minde, and his manner of vtterance the very warp and woofe of his conceits, more plaine, or busie and intricate, or otherwise affected after the rate." Which indeed struck me as a plausible English way to translate Scaliger's distinction between _puritas_ or _simplicitas_ and _floridum_ or _splendor_. Something, perhaps, rather like what George Herbert wrote in "Jordan II," reprehending "fictions only, and false hair," and concluding--with an eye perhaps to issues such as the probable state of a dead man's soul, and the moral lessons his survivors might learn from his life, "Nor let them punish me with losse of rhyme, / Who plainly say, _My God, My King_." So, to repeat, it's a great relief to have Kennedy assure us that it's all Don Foster's invention. Finally, I am so glad that Kennedy has demonstrated to all of us who thought that scholarly discourse ought ideally to be carried on in terms of courtesy and some finesse, that it can be even more enlightening when it is intemperate, rude, vulgar, ignorant, arrogant, and coarse. Plainly, Dave Evett (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judy Kennedy Date: Monday, 4 Mar 1996 15:04:27 AST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0152 Re: Funeral Elegy > There is no such thing as an elegaic poem. >Why ever not? >It is a tautology, but elegaic has a distinct meaning now.> Perhaps the point would have been clearer if I had said there is no such word as elegaic. Consult the OED for the derivation, meaning, and usage of elegIAC. Judy Kennedy St.Thomas University (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 04 Mar 1996 14:52 ET Subject: SHK 7.0142 Re: Funeral Elegy Addendum to the material on "the plain style" in my earlier posting. Richard A. Lanham, in his _Handlist of Rhetorical Terms_ (U. of California P., 1968), after noting the widely familar 3-level model of low, middle, and high, goes on to summarize a four-fold division made by the Greek rhetorician Demetrius, into "Plain," "Grand," "Elegant," and "Forceful." On the same page, less historically, he comments in an interesting way on "Two further categories. . : the style (plain or ornate) which acknowledges that it is a style, a rhetoric, an effort at persuasion, and the style (plain or ornate) which does not. He also quotes Kenneth Burke's paraphrase of Cicero: "the plain style is best for teaching, the tempered style for pleasing, kland the ornate (grandiloquent) style for moving" (114-15). All of this handsomely substantiates Richard J. Kennedy's assertion that Don Foster invented the plain style. I might add, as somebody who writes a good many occasional poems, that the knowledge that a piece will be read or heard by Aunt Jane and neighbor John is a strong inducement to throttle back the rhetorical engines: they always like best those works that are most straightforward, and whose images and allusions are well-worn, familiar, comfortable. More plainly yet, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:22:47 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0160 Re: Othello's Religion Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0160. Monday, 4 March 1996. (1) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Saturday, 2 Mar 1996 10:42:30 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0156 Re: Othello's Religion (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 3 Mar 1996 07:58:36 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0156 Re: Othello's Religion (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Saturday, 2 Mar 1996 10:42:30 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0156 Re: Othello's Religion Perhaps an interesting issue to examine is the gap between Othello's perception of himself as a Christian and societiy's perception of him as a Moslem. Although I'm not looking at anything specifically textual, it seems that one interpretation of this play presents Othello's chief concern as assimilation (I would even argue that the he murders Desdemona because her behavior is societally "improper" and makes him look bad, rather than because he's jealous - but that's another story). And while Othello is busy trying to fit in, those around him (particularly Iago) continue to see him as a Moslem nomatter what. Once again, this is just an interpretation of a question that I think is quite an open-ended one. Like the recent Hamlet-Ophelia question, I don't think we are provided with conclusive evidence one way or another in the play, and the fun of this is that productions of the piece can continue to rehash these issues and remain more interesting than if a definitive "answer" were found. Wide open to interpretation, Shirley Kagan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 3 Mar 1996 07:58:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0156 Re: Othello's Religion Although the Italian play is given as a source for Othello, a second likely source is the long-standing rumour that Philip of Spain strangled his young wife, Elizabeth Valois, because of her love for his son, Don Carlos (a tale that formed the main plot of Verdi's Don Carlo). This may be the reason for the rather ambiguous behavior of Emilia, who may have been based on the Princess of Eboli, Philip's mistress, who may have been involved in the intrigue that led to the death of the Queen. A handkerchief was involved in that story as well. To the English, the Spanish were all "moors" because of their dark coloring and the long sojourn of the Moorish culture in Spain. In the parlance of the day, a Moor was a person of middle-eastern origin while someone of African origin was a Blackamoor. The term "black" for a person's coloring meant anything from black African to white skin with dark brown hair and eyes. Thus the ambiguity that surrounds the figure of Emilia also surrounds the religion of Othello (Philip was a fanatic Catholic). Of course Othello can be, and has been, played in any way that suits a director. It also seems more likely that a story casting oprobrium on Philip would be exciting for a London audience in the years before the Armada, when Philip was a figure of fear and hatred to the English. This may not fit with Othello's place in the accepted chronology, but there is a great deal of evidence that Shakespeare's plays all appeared in their first versions much earlier than the versions that have come down to us from the First Folio. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:30:03 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0161 Re: Pen/Ink; Methinks; Plays; Educational Videos Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0161. Monday, 4 March 1996. (1) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Saturday, 2 Mar 1996 11:36:16 -0500 (EST) Subj: RE: Albert Misseldine's query about pen and ink (2) From: Surajit Bose Date: Saturday, 2 Mar 1996 14:36:44 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0151 They Once Were Lost But Now They're Found (3) From: Jerry Bangham Date: Sunday, 03 Mar 1996 15:45:33 Subj: Plays attributed to Shakespeare (4) From: Rick Kincaid Date: Sunday, 03 Mar 1996 16:00:24 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0155 Re: Educational Videos (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Saturday, 2 Mar 1996 11:36:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: Albert Misseldine's query about pen and ink Yes, portable pen sets were available, and mentioned in Jonson's *Epicoene* 5.1.13 ff. Mavis requests pen and ink, and Daw says he can "furnish" her: Clerimont explains, "He has it in the haft of a knife, I believe", but Lafoole corrects him: "No, he has his box of instuments", containing mathematical tools, and "brass pens, and black lead, to draw maps of every place, and person, where he comes". So perhaps the doctor was taking notes with an early form of pencil, as described here. Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L9 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Surajit Bose Date: Saturday, 2 Mar 1996 14:36:44 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0151 They Once Were Lost But Now They're Found Chris Fassler asks: >what if an early modern writer had translated "Cogito >ergo sum" as "Methinks; therefore I am"? Or, alternatively, what if Gertrude >says, "I think she's full of it"? This is a fascinating idea, but alas! as Thomas Huxley said, "the great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." Since Rene Descartes was born in 1596, he would have been only around five when Hamlet was written. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Sunday, 03 Mar 1996 15:45:33 Subject: Plays attributed to Shakespeare The 1966, Issue 1 of "Theatre Record" has several reviews of Olly Figg's "Contested Will" at the Etcetera Theatre in London. The play deals with William Ireland's "Vortigern and Rowena" which Ireland claimed was a lost Shakespearean manuscript. The play was produced at Drury Lane, but only for one performance. There was evidently little doubt in the audience's minds about the authenticity of the script. One review quotes program notes referring to Shakespeare as a "scared cow." (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Kincaid Date: Sunday, 03 Mar 1996 16:00:24 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0155 Re: Educational Videos I definitely have to agree with Jeff Kean. John Barton's "Playing Shakespeare" could easily be used to introduce Shakespeare to a young audience. I have to admit this series brought Shakespeare's words to life for me. Before that, I just didn't get it, I didn't enjoy reading it, and I hadn't a clue how to act it.Perhaps it's because my English teachers, as much as the adored his words, chose to forget or ignore the fact that Shakespeare was written to be performed. John Barton forces the actors to find the vitality of the text. And they talk through it and pose questions that a teacher can use to involve his/her students. And the students will enjoy watching famous actors such as Patrick Stewart, Ben Kingsey, Ian McCellen, and Roger Reese (I know that's not the correct spelling of his last name, but they'll recognize him as Rebecca's fiance on "Cheers") being "taught at." Rick ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:39:30 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0162 Announcement: RSA 1997 Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0162. Monday, 4 March 1996. From: Paul Budra Date: Monday, 4 Mar 1996 07:44:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: RSA 1997 PLEASE FORWARD THE 1997 ANNUAL MEETING OF THE THE RENAISSANCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA Will take place Thursday through Sunday, April 3rd through April 6th, 1997, in Vancouver, Canada. The Program Committe invites abstracts for papers as well as proposals for panels. Send ten (10) copies of each abstract and proposal to Paul Budra, Dept. of English Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6 by May 1st, 1996. Acceptances will be mailed the first week of September 1996. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:44:27 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0163 Qs: Volpone in _Volpone_; Info on CD-ROMS Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0163. Monday, 4 March 1996. (1) From: Robert Evans Date: Sunday, 3 Mar 1996 12:43:48 -0600 (CST) Subj: Volpone in _Volpone_ (2) From: Nora Kreimer Date: Monday, 4 Mar 1996 11:32:44 ARG Subj: Info on CD-ROMS (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Evans Date: Sunday, 3 Mar 1996 12:43:48 -0600 (CST) Subject: Volpone in _Volpone_ I am preparing a short essay on the character Volpone in Ben Jonson's play _Volpone_. In the essay, I want to indicate the most important and/or hotly debated issues concerning this character -- the issues that arise most frequently in critical discussions and classroom dialogue. I've already compiled quite a lengthy list, but I'd be grateful for any further suggestions. One obvious topic, for instance, is what to make of Volpone's punishment at the end of the play. Another is the degree to which he is or isn't a sympathetic or appealing character. Since many people on this list undoubtedly have read, taught, and thought about the play (and seen productions), I welcome any feedback. Thanks! -- Robert C. (Bob) Evans -- bobevans@strudel.aum.edu PS: Please feel free to forward this query to any other relevant lists. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nora Kreimer Date: Monday, 4 Mar 1996 11:32:44 ARG Subject: Info on CD-ROMS I'd be very grateful if someone on the list could give me some titles of Shakespeare CD-Roms like one that came up in my Austen list: MUCH ADO ABOUT SHAKESPEARE. Also include, when possible the address in USA where I might place an order from Argentina. If prices are included, the info would be complete! Thank you very much. Nora Kreimer Ugarteche 2883 1 A 1425 Buenos Aires Argentina Voice: 801-3486 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:49:10 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0164 About This List Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0164. Monday, 4 March 1996. From: Michael Saenger Date: Monday, 4 Mar 1996 16:08:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: About This List It occurred to me that we really have a problem. I realize this is a sensitive issue, but the proliferation of junk is making it hard to take the list seriously at times. Many valuable contributors have tuned out after reading careless and incorrect postings. The basic idea of this list is a noble one -- a truly democratic forum for ideas, a way of weaving any one with a modem into the academic community. And it is not naive questions that bring the list down so much as selfish and lazy ranting. So what's the solution? Two lists. One dedicated to high-level dialogue, the other answering basic questions and open to any kind of banter. Any one could subscribe to either list, but submissions would be controlled, either by Hardy or by the people themselves. In other words, submissions which are really chatter would be directed to the chat list. You may think this sounds elitist, but actually there are a lot of people, including myself, who would love to hear the more distinguished voices of Shakespeare criticism, people who know far more than myself. These voices are, for the most part, currently speaking only in articles, conferences and their own universities. The internet would be a great way to allow them to reach a wider audience, but they are now tuning out on the list. If we divide the list, then the Shakespearean novice could ask questions on one list, and listen to the highest level of debate on the other. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 14:11:55 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0165 Re: About This List Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0165. Tuesday, 5 March 1996. (1) From: Peter Herman Date: Monday, 4 Mar 1996 21:07:26 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0164 About This List (2) From: Nora Kreimer Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 01:21:30 ARG Subj: Re: SHK 7.0164 About This List (3) From: Louis Scheeder Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 01:35:07 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0164 About This List (4) From: Heather Stephenson Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 09:04:27 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0164 About This List (5) From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 05 Mar 1996 11:03:33 +0000 (HELP) Subj: About This List (6) From: Timothy Reed Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 09:18:56 -0700 Subj: Two mailing lists (of Verona?) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Herman Date: Monday, 4 Mar 1996 21:07:26 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0164 About This List It seems to me that Michael Saenger's suggestion is an invitation to elitism and defeats the entire purpose of the 'net in general and these lists in particular. Who is to decide what is chatter and what is not? And who is to say that answers to neophyte Shakespeareans can't be of use to the rest of us? Furthermore, what role will ideology and critical orientation play in deciding who gets to play in the majors and who gets shunted to the bush leagues (and Saenger's language certainly implies these value judgments)? Will John Drakakis' witty, left of center attacks on empiricism or essentialism be deemed less worthy than, say, the less exciting, more conventionally scholarly discussions of feminine endings in the FE? If Saenger finds a topic uninteresting or irrelevant to his concerns, then I suggest he avail himself of the delete button and move on. Peter C. Herman Dept. of English Georgia State U (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nora Kreimer Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 01:21:30 ARG Subject: Re: SHK 7.0164 About This List I join ranks with Saenger and pluck off the red rose. I want serious academic discussion on the one hand and a chat list for more frivolous moments. I'll susbcribe to the other one, whichever that is, so that I get, like Shakespeare, the best of both worlds. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Scheeder Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 01:35:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0164 About This List And dialogue, drama, conflict, and controversy would end. Louis Scheeder scheedrl@acf2.nyu.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Heather Stephenson Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 09:04:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0164 About This List With English departments still debating the import of cultural studies (in opposition to canonical studies... or so goes the debate), I have a question regarding Michael Saenger's request for two lists: Who is going to get to define the terms "chatter" and "highest level of debate?" And will serious submissions be "put in their place" by the suggestion that they belong on the "chat" list? I have always considered myself one who was all for elitism, but the thought of this "policing" bothers me. Heather Stephenson Georgetown University (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 05 Mar 1996 11:03:33 +0000 (HELP) Subject: About This List But my dear fellow, garlic and sapphires in the mud, don't you know, and this particular axle tree is not really clotted like the cream you desire, but accommodates all sort and conditions of minds. ...even those who in their haste would mistype and thereby miss the odd plural, the odder comma and often abjure through carelessness the dreaded semicolon. We can hear here from the mute inglorious Miltons who don't pepper their notes with quotations and echoes as I have, usually unnoticedperhaps, made my habit. Quite a few of us rush to comment, and I have many times found this rather stimulating. *What* in me it stimulates is up to me. (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Timothy Reed Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 09:18:56 -0700 Subject: Two mailing lists (of Verona?) Regarding your proposal to split the SHAKSPER mailing list in two: As well intentioned as it sounds, trying to split the SHAKSPER mailing list simply will not work. One person's definition of chatter is invaluable information to another. I often am very interested in the replies to a request for info...on the Pennington "Hamlet" book, for instance. There's a good chance I'll be playing Hamlet this fall, and I would never have heard of the book without this resource. Your request sounds like one that is frequently made by those new to mailing lists or newsgroups on the net. This is not meant as an insult, merely an observation; if your experience is otherwise, I apologize. Self moderation will not work. People are just too likely to reply to a message without thinking where it should go. And new members need some time to get the feel of what goes on which list. You'll run into the constant arguments of whether a particular post is on topic or not, and wind up generating more noise than you've cleared up. Moderator intervention has its drawbacks too, not the least of which is the burden on Hardy Cook's time. He has done a Herculean task in maintaining it so far...give the guy a break, don't load him down with more to do. But given any particular moderator, there are always people who are unhappy with his decisions and who rant and rave about censorship, and they do have a point. Would everyone on the two lists be happy with all the decisions he made? Probably not. Hardy has done a very wise thing...he distributes the messages as they come to him with virtually no editing. (I imagine that he discards messages that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but otherwise we see what he gets.) So how to solve the problem? Like this. I am writing this as an e-mail to you rather than posting it to the list, because I feel that this message is more appropriate as a direct communication than distributed to the list members. (I am also forwarding a copy to Hardy Cook, because I believe the suggestions to follow might help. If Hardy thinks it is appropriate to post this to the list, I give him full permission to do so.) Perhaps Hardy should periodically post reminders to the list that members should consider whether their posts to the list are of interest many of the members, or just a few. Heated discussions back and forth between two opposing members on some obscure topic are generally not of interest to the masses; the members in question should relegate their argument to private e-mail. I have always adopted the philosophy that if it is of interest to at least a handful of people I'll post it, otherwise I'll carry on private correspondence. You're right that SHAKSPER is a list where one expects a high level of discourse and scholarship. I think that most of the posts I have read have met those expectations. If things are getting a little careless and sloppy, a gentle reminder that what gets posted goes to over 600 people and to keep it of interest to them is more than sufficient at present. There are whole subject topics on SHAKSPER that are of no interest to me. Thankfully Hardy groups posts together under a subject title and I simply delete them without reading. Readers of mailing lists have to develop the skills to separate what they want from what they don't. Timothy Reed The Upstart Crow Theatre Company Boulder, Colorado ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 14:21:19 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0166 Re: Educational Videos; Sh. on Film Newsletter; Pen/Ink Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0166. Tuesday, 5 March 1996. (1) From: Ted Nellen Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 00:39:16 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0161 Re: Educational Videos (2) From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 07:57:48 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shakespeare on Film Newsletter (3) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 08:19:47 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0161 Re: Pen/Ink (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ted Nellen Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 00:39:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0161 Re: Educational Videos Absolutely use these Barton videos. They are brillant and are a great assistance to any teacher. I used them as the core to my classes when my kids performed Shakespeare. They were not above the heads of my NYC public high school kids. In fact they enjoyed the methods of Barton and seeing some familar faces. My personl favorite section is his discourse on "Time". Brillant stuff. Cheers, Ted (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 07:57:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare on Film Newsletter Dear Fellow Subscribers, It's been drawn to my attention that in a recent posting about the DUCHESS OF MALFI, my report of the "defunctness" of the Shakespeare on Film Newsletter was grossly exaggerated. Freshly incarnated, it survives in the pages of SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, published at Lafayette College, Easton PA 18042, and edited by James Lusardi and June Schlueter. Back issues of the Shakespeare on Film Newsletter may be ordered from the editors, who inherited the files when SFNL closed down. There's also a complete index that includes a citation to David Carnegie's DUCHESS OF Malfi review in vol. 12, no. 1 (December 1987). (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 08:19:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0161 Re: Pen/Ink Pen/Ink/Pencils I remember reading that pencils first came into use in the late 1500's, but don't remember exactly when, or who invented them. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 14:29:00 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0167 Re: Sources for Othello; Malfi Video; Volpone; FE Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0167. Tuesday, 5 March 1996. (1) From: Florence Amit Date: Tuesday, 05 Mar 1996 09:23:42 +0200 Subj: Re. Sources for Othello (2) From: John Dorenkamp Date: Tuesday, 05 Mar 1996 09:55:08 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Malfi Video (3) From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 05 Mar 1996 09:11:54 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re Volpone (4) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 4 Mar 1996 19:32:41 -0800 Subj: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Florence Amit Date: Tuesday, 05 Mar 1996 09:23:42 +0200 Subject: Re. Sources for Othello Here is a source that Emilie Roi recently had posted in the "Jerusalem Post". She cites the historian A.L. Rowse and a book by David Lasocki and Roger Prior, "The Bassanos:Venetian Musicians and Instrument Makers in England, 1531-1665" (Aldershot, Hampshire, Scolar Press)> Roi says that in this Jewish converso, musician family there were friends of William Shakespeare and even his dark lady, Emilia Bassano. She mentions two of the family "members were described as 'black men.' And is it a coincidence that the mulberry tree [think of the ornament on Othello's handkerchief] on the Bassano shield is in Italian called 'Moro' for Moor, a dark person?" That would be a twist, wouldn't it be, if Othello had been a Jew? By the way Othello can be translated from the Hebrew to mean out= sign, el= god, o= masculine ending. In other words the name can mean stigmatized; it can also mean circumcised , which applys to Moslems too. The findings of this book has great relevance for MV and the sonnets as well as such matters as authorship, musicality and who knows what more. I have ordered it. Florence Amit Email: amit-1@actcom.co.il (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Dorenkamp Date: Tuesday, 05 Mar 1996 09:55:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Malfi Video A few years ago (maybe even 10 if that is possible), I rented a copy of the BBC Duchess of Malfi from Indiana University's Audio Visual Services. I suspect it is still available. Unfortunately I no longer have their address or phone number. (It was part of the detritus of which I unburdened myself upon retirement). Nonetheless, they were very cooperative and had, as I remember, an extensive collection. The Duchess of Malfi, with Eileen Atkins in the title role, was indeed part of a PBS series called something like "Classic Drama," which included a very fine "Edward II," and (I think, although memory may not serve well here) a good production of "The Changeling." Apparently the BBC series became property of Time-Life (although when I was searching for it, they knew nothing of it). At any rate, give Indiana a try. It's a version well worth seeing. John Dorenkamp dorenkamp@holycross.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 05 Mar 1996 09:11:54 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re Volpone You have raise, doubtless without direct intention, the vital question to which the answer is "It depends who plays Volpone". (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 4 Mar 1996 19:32:41 -0800 Subject: Funeral Elegy I really don't mean to whip the Funeral Elegy, and I say let the unknown W.S. rest in peace and say things in heaven to his friend William Peter that he didn't get down too well in a poem, but all the while we must remind outselves of Shakespeare, his excellent fancy in recommending his love and his poetry to the ages. Here is Sonnet 55. "Not marble, nor the gilded monuments Of princes, shall outlive this powerful rime; But you shall shine more bright in these contents, Than unswept stone, besmeared with sluttish time. When wasteful war shall statues overturn, And broils root out the work of masonry, Nor Mars his sword nor war's quick fire shall burn The living record of your memory. 'Gainst death and all-oblivious enmity Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room, Even in the eyes of all posterity That wear this world out to the ending doom. So, till the judgement that you yourself arise, You live in this, and dwell in lovers' eyes." If Shakespeare wrote the Funeral Elegy, you've got to wonder what happened to him between sonnet 55, a poem which has truely purchased immortal life for the memory of his man (or woman) and, the half-hearted lease on time that W.S. takes out for poor William Peter. (FE, Lines 195-204.) "What can we leave behind us but a name, Which, by a life well led, may honor have? Such honor, O thou youth untimely lost, Thou didst deserve and hast; for though thy soul Hath took her flight to a diviner coast, Yet here on earth thy fame lives ever whole, In every heart sealed up, in every tongue Fit matter for discourse, no day prevented That pities not thy sad and sudden wrong, Of all alike beloved and lamented." Anyone who would charge both sonnet 55 and these several lines of the Elegy to the same man is in danger of being discarded and forgotten within a year's time, "fit matter for discourse" only in derision. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 14:34:30 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0168 Conferences Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0168. Tuesday, 5 March 1996. (1) From: Carol Boettger Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 09:18:58 -0800 (PST) Subj: RE: Sixth World Shakespeare Congress (2) From: Sara Jayne Steen Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 10:25:38 -0500 Subj: Conference Call (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carol Boettger Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 09:18:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: RE: Sixth World Shakespeare Congress Sixth World Shakespeare Congress: Theatrical Performances The _Los Angeles Times_ "Theater Notes" of March 3 reported on the Sixth World Shakespeare Congress Performing Arts Festival at the Los Angeles Theater Center. Don Shirley's article stated that "A Midsummer Night's Dream" will be set on a Navajo reservation. A Southern California naval base will be the setting for "Twelfth Night". "Measure for Measure" will be set in Newt Gingrich's Washington. Additional performances listed in the Congress Social Programme include "Venus and Adonis" performed by Ben Stewart. I had the pleasure of seeing his excellent one-man dramatization of V&A at Shakespeare Orange County last summer, and I highly recommend it. At that time, his performance of the entire work took almost two hours. In the World Congress program, his performance is scheduled for only one hour. I look forward to seeing his enactment of the poem again, even if cuts have been necessary. Carol Boettger (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Jayne Steen Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 10:25:38 -0500 Subject: Conference Call Please note the following announcement for the Rocky Mountain Medieval and Renaissance Association Meeting for 1997. The meeting always has sessions on Shakespeare, and you are welcome to propose papers or full sessions. Sara Jayne Steen President, RMMRA ************************************************ Please Cross-Post to other lists or bulletin boards The Rocky Mountain Medieval and Renaissance Association will meet in Banff, Alberta, Canada, May 15-18 1997. Papers may concern any medieval or early modern subject (e.g., Literature in any language used in the period, Theatre, History, Art History, Science, Philosophy, Travel and Exploration). Except by prior arrangement, papers should take no more than twenty minutes of reading time. They may be delivered in either English or French. Proposals for sessions must reach the conference organizers by October 1, 1996; completed papers accompanied by 200-word abstracts must be postmarked no later than January 31, 1997. Inquiries, proposals for sessions, and MSS should be sent to Professor Jean MacIntyre, Department of English, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E5. FAX: (403) 492-8142. E-mail: Jean.MacIntyre@UAlberta.ca Voice: (403) 492-3258 [Dept.], (403) 492-4148 [office] Sara Jayne Steen Professor of English Montana State University-Bozeman uenss@newton.math.montana.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 14:36:31 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0169 Shrew in Performance Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0169. Tuesday, 5 March 1996. From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 10:46:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Shrew in Performance The African American Shakespeare Company is currently staging _Shrew_ in San Francisco at the Next Stage Theatre, in rep with a multicultural _Merchant_ staged by Second Wind Productions. I haven't seen either yet, and they are only running for a couple of more weeks, but _Shrew_ received a favorable review in the Feb. 28 San Francisco Bay Guardian, which can be accessed on-line, I believe, at http://www.sfbayguardian.com. The reviewer, Dennis Harvey, raises an interesting question over and above his admiration for this particular performance. "Ask what this area needs, theater programming-wise, and 'more Shakespeare' would not likely appear at the top of anyone's list.... The summertime Shakespeare glut [in the Bay Area] is so thick by now that I groan whenever the Bard turns up 'off-season.'" One worries whether the profusion of Shakespearean performances in the Bay Area and elsewhere -- often by acting companies whose personnel are insufficiently trained and experienced in Shakespeare, although that's another matter -- doesn't also mask the dearth of contemporary theater here and elsewhere. Not that people in the theater aren't trying; but the economics of theater today may such that the only way to encourage new playwrights and the performance of new plays at the professional level, especially to provide new playwrights and directors with the continued experience in the theater they would need in order to perfect their skills, would be to provide considerably more government funding than is likely to come forth these days. The performance of Shakespeare, whether straight or in drag (as it were), may be to theater what the performance of Mozart and Beethoven is to symphonic music. One doesn't object to it; one encourages it; it seems to be necessary to the culture of performers and performances. But one worries about our lack of support (in places like the Bay Area at least) for new theater, in spite of the fact that there is a lot of _desire_ for new theater, in spite of the many financial sacrifices that people in the theater are often willing to make in order to provide for it, and in spite of the many low-budget experiments that in fact find their way into performance. I'm wondering if people in academic and theater communities elsewhere would be willing to comment on this situation. And P.S., when I refer to "new theater," I don't mean David Mamet or Tony Kushner, much as I admire the work of both playwrights, and am happy to attend a performance of any of their plays whenever I can. I mean precisely all those other playwrights who are not breaking through to the professional stage, and who are not being given a chance to develop their skills _in_ the theater. Is it perhaps the case that we need "Shakespeare" these days (along with, say, Mamet and Stoppard and Kushner) in order to garner the support of a theatergoing public and especially the support of subsidies from private foundations and government agencies? Just asking. But no, I will probably not be satisfied with answers concerning how "vital" regional theater happens to in any particular Podunk, or how such and such a place (e.g. Louisville) holds a two-week festival for new plays. If these are exceptions to the rule, they also prove the rule. In the U.S. at least, it seems to me, the real issue seems to me to be how we can do the impossible, increase rather than decrease the funding of the National Endowment for the Arts, and earmark increased funds for theatrical experimentation -- for theater which doesn't rely on the Bard as an excuse for existing. Robert Appelbaum ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:23:10 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0170 Re: About This List Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0170. Wednesday, 6 March 1996. (1) From: Robert Teeter Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 12:17:43 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0165 Re: About This List (2) From: Gerald Morgan Date: Tuesday, 05 Mar 1996 13:09:06 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0164 About This List (3) From: Michael Saenger Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 17:09:18 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Two mailing lists (of Verona?) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Teeter Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 12:17:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0165 Re: About This List I am one of those non-academic Shakespeareans who appreciates the chance to hear serious discussion of the subject. However, I would not like to see the list split. There are two keys I use to avoid clutter -- the delete key and the reply key. Because Hardy Cook so carefully combines related messages, I can easily delete what I'm not interested in. When I want to make a comment of limited interest to the whole group, I can reply to the author by private e-mail. There is yet another way to avoid clutter on the list. Those who want to chat or discuss issues not covered by this list can always go to the newsgroup: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare All of this should be sufficient to keep "clutter" to a minimum. This list has a good signal-to-noise ratio as it is, thanks in large part to the fine work done by Hardy Cook. Hardy doesn't need to add policing duties. Robert Teeter (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gerald Morgan Date: Tuesday, 05 Mar 1996 13:09:06 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0164 About This List I hope you will reconsider your suggestion of splitting the electronic conference in two. I for one have been a grateful spectator of "high-level" submissions, and as a relative novice I'm afraid I'd fall into the second tier of participants. Personally, I feel like anyone who has taken the time to subscribe should have opportunity for full participation. Perhaps an agreeable screening policy (cooperative censorship?) would be acceptable to the group in its entirety, and thus leave the forum open AND focused. Additionally, "careless and incorrect postings" are inevitable in any open discussion, and should be met with response rather than withdrawal. These "valuable contributors" should hold true to this spirit. Gerry Morgan, Office of the Provost University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1258 (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 17:09:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Two mailing lists (of Verona?) Dear Timothy, I appreciated your letter, in which I found nothing offensive. The list at present does serve some very important functions, especially referring people to secondary material, which are very useful. But I argue it could do far more. You seem to argue that the winnowing fan is in each recipient's hands, and the chaff get a "D" based on their subject heading. Yes, this is what I do and many others. But wouldn't it be interesting to have a coherent, high-level discussion? Professors from different institutions could comment on each other's articles and clarify their positions. The only way to entice these professors onto the net is to assure them of a vetted discussion. The list as we know it is very valuable and should continue as it is. The different lists would serve different purposes. Think of it this way; what we currently have is like a "Shakespeare cafe" with all different sorts of people. What I am proposing would be something separate from this, like a panel discussion with an open audience. Would some people disagree with who should speak? Of course, but anarchy is not freedom, it is merely the rule of the loudest. What we currently have is, of course, not anarchy. Hardy has been doing a fine job of running the show (and I doubt he is paid for this). Whether he would be willing to take on this task, and the inevitable flak that would thrown his way from disappointed submitters is a question only he can answer. But just think about it. If one major scholar got on a high-level list, his or her rivals would almost have to respond. This dialogue would educate us all. Yours sincerely, Michael Saenger ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:27:53 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0171 Re: Shrew in Performance Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0171. Wednesday, 6 March 1996. (1) From: Fran Teague Date: Tuesday, 05 Mar 96 16:27:53 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0169 Shrew in Performance (2) From: Daniel M Larner Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 18:43:37 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0169 Shrew in Performance (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Tuesday, 05 Mar 96 16:27:53 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0169 Shrew in Performance I found Robert Appelbaum's post very interesting: what indeed can we do if we want to see more or fewer Shakespeare productions, more or fewer of his contemporaries' plays, more or fewer original scripts . . . . Formulate it as you please, but one answer remains the same. If you want more of a certain kind of production, OFFER STRONG SUPPORT. Financial support is always welcome, but an academic can also provide dramaturgical support. And most of us are quite capable of serving as directors or box office staff or performers. Admittedly these suggestions are of greater use in a community theater setting than a professional. Yet I do know of community theaters that produce original scripts and experimental plays. Forgive me for preaching to the choir, as I suspect I am doing, but I don't often have the chance to say that I think we should put our money and our time into supporting the arts. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel M Larner Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 18:43:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0169 Shrew in Performance I founded the New Playwrights Theatre here at Western Washington University in the 70's, and we have since done several hundred short student works. There are several opportunities to stage new works in Seattle, including a festival each year, but it's meager relative to the need, and not much new gets staged outside of special occasions like the festival. I agree with Richard Applebaum. In the theatre we need to take up this banner and start staging more new plays, including in university programs. If they are good, people will come. Daniel Larner ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:35:04 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0172 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0172. Wednesday, 6 March 1996. (1) From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 06 Mar 1996 09:00:49 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 20:34:07 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0159 Re: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 06 Mar 1996 09:00:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Funeral Elegy I have thought it best to stay out of SHAKSPER discussion of the Funeral Elegy (hereafter "FE"), but perhaps I'll jump in here to offer a few thoughts. As will be clear to everyone, various ideological issues have come into play in recent discussion. Richard J. Kennedy and his fellow anti-Stratfordians have a huge stake in dismissing the Elegy: the earl of Oxford in Feb. 1612 was too dead to have written it. In England, a couple of prominent Shakespeareans have dismissed the attribution as an American thing: if Shakespeare had penned a funeral elegy in his latter years, even a lame one, it wouldn't have been sitting unnoticed in an Oxford library for nearly 400 years. Then, too, what are we to *say* about such a strange text? Sparing in its imagery, lacking in the verbal flourishes that we usually find in Shakespeare, focused almost entirely on biographical matters, the text does not lend much fuel to our critical enterprise, whether formalist, feminist, materialist, or poststructuralist. Actors have been among the first to embrace the Elegy because its highly enjambed verse does, after all, roll off the tongue rather nicely, affording considerable range to a talented actor--from its fairly conventional opening, to the unexpected talk of personal shame in 137 ff., to the angry denunciation of lines 399-412, and on to the poet's weary sorrow in the close. At least two widely acclaimed actors--Harry Hill and F. Murray Abraham--have recorded the Elegy; and though I have not yet heard either performance, I've got a hunch that their oral readings will do more for me than the words on the printed page. These considerations, both for and against the Elegy's value as *poetry*, are not unimportant; but they have no direct bearing upon the question of authorship. I would rather not quarrel with Mr. Kennedy. That he has gotten his hands on some of my unpublished work, a conference handout, and used it without my permission--without, indeed having been present at the talk and without having understood the first thing about John Ford's relations with Will Peter and William Shakespeare--cannot in the long run do any harm either to me or to Shakespeare studies. Having already studied the Ford-Peter-Shakespeare connection, I can happily give Mr. Kennedy extra ammunition, which he may then shoot in my direction at his leisure. For example: here are a dozen words from the Elegy that appear at least once in John Ford's verse but *nowhere* (not once--zilch!-zippo!) in Shakespearean texts: desertful (ad.), ensnaring (ad.), ignorantly (adv.), invitement (n.), irrefragable (ad.), partage (n.), rarely (adv., meaning infrequently), superlative (ad.), unremembered (ad.), ever-empty (ad.), and sour-bitter (ad.). But Mr. Kennedy is mistaken: John Ford cannot have written "A Funeral Elegy." The mere suggestion that the death of John Peter's brother provided Ford with the occasion for a quick money-making hoax is foolish: whom does Kennedy think Ford is fooling with the initials "W.S."? John Peter, to whom the poem is dedicated? and who, then, is the WS, the speaking "I" of this poem, implied to be--if not William Shakespeare? --and if not only John Peter but the uninformed reader is supposed to think that W.S. is Shakespeare, we're back at square one: why should readers in 1612 think that the speaking "I" in this largely autobiographical poem is Shakespeare? But even if we had cause to hunt for a conspiracy, Mr. Kennedy's attribution has nothing to sustain it. Ford never comes close to FE's high rate of enjambment; Ford's rate of feminine endings is too high for FE; WS's use of you/ye matches Shakespeare, not Ford; Shakespearean nondramatic texts have a hugely higher lexical correlation with FE than do Ford's nondramatic texts, even though Ford *borrows* in 1613-16 from FE; and Ford himself in 1613 makes pretty clear that he thinks FE is by Shakespeare. Mr. Kennedy writes me to say, "I keep waiting for new proofs to turn up that would support the Stratford man...and since your studies touch on such discoveries, I am, as you say, vigorous in response as my understanding directs me....For those who have EARS, let them read, and the Funeral Elegy will be seen as a bag of bones, wasted of any poetic flesh, and will at last be shrouded from our care, enjambed in the grave with poor William Peter." But then, ears (as Bottom reminds us) come in various sizes. We will all hear better, and more clearly, when the shrill tone of Mr. Kennedy subsides long enough for intelligent and thoughtful skepticism to weigh the evidence for Shakespeare's hand in this odd poem. Don Foster (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 20:34:07 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0159 Re: Funeral Elegy A couple of replies on the Elegy. To Bill Godshalk: >> Venus and Adonis 15.7 (1592-93) >> Lucrece 10.7 (1593-94) >> Phoenix & Turtle 9.0 (1601) >> Sonnets 7.7 (1593-1603) >> Lover's Complaint 8.8 (1603-4) >> >I've added some dates (from the Oxford Textual Companion and Bevington) to Dave >Kathman's list of poems. The first two long poems have to be early because they >were printed and published early. We can argue about the dating of the sonnets >-- and why not? But the sonnets seem to have a direct relationship to the >early plays. *The Phoenix and Turtle* had to have been written before it was >published in 1601, and that leaves the *Lover's Complaint.* The Oxford editors >obviously want to place Shakespeare's non-dramatic poetry in a ten year period >(1593-1603). If Shakespeare's career is divided into two parts with 1600 as >the dividing line, then, if we accept the Oxford dating, the poems are >basically early. If we accept the Oxford dating. I don't really have time to get into an extended discussion of this point, but I'm inclined to date the sonnets later than is generally supposed. >But my major point is that we should not mix our criteria of judgment in >ascribing FE to Shakespeare or anyone else. Ideally, yes, but we should also use the best criteria we can under the circumstances. The point I was trying to make was that it makes more sense to compare the feminine endings in FE with Shakespeare's (rhymed) nondramatic verse than with the blank verse of his later plays. In this particular case, the differences between rhymed and blank verse in feminine endings are more important than any possible time differences within rhymed verse, which for reasons I gave I wouldn't expect to be significant. Gabriel Egan finds that I have shifted my ground significantly. I don't think I've changed my actual views, just the way I expressed them, and I'm sorry if that caused any confusion. The point I was trying to make was simply that there tend to be sigificantly fewer feminine endings in Elizabethan rhymed verse than in Elizabethan blank verse, and that we should take this into account when evaluating the Elegy. I gave some examples of playwrights who wrote Elegies the same year as W.S.'s with few feminine endings, yet who wrote plays a few years earlier, primarily in blank verse, which had far more feminine endings. I don't know why this is; I have no particular attachment to the speculative explanation I gave in my first post on the subject. There may or may not be a causal relationship involved, and I'm certainly not going to deny that there may be other forces at work besides rhyme. The type of poem may well be a factor, but that's why I specifically used elegies vs. plays in my examples, to make the context as similar as possible. I honestly don't see why rejecting a causal relationship between rhyme and feminine endings would make my averages "invalid", as Egan claims. Whatever the ultimate reason may be, the fact remains that there are many fewer feminine endings in rhymed elegiac verse written around the time of W.S.'s Elegy than there are in blank verse plays written around the same time by the same authors. That seems like a relevant thing to know in this discussion. >I do not understand why Kathman considers the 12 line song of Juno and Ceres in >The Tempest (4.1.106) to have "every line...deliberately feminine". It is >trochaic tetrameter throughout, with no extra-metrical lines. Yeah, you're right. I got those numbers for The Tempest from Don Foster's book (p.246, note 7), and I misinterpreted a badly worded note without checking carefully enough and then expressed myself poorly. It's true that the song in question is in regular trochaic tetrameter, and thus that it has no feminine endings according to the usual use of the term (i.e. an extrametrical syllable at line's end, usually unstressed). What I should have said was that you can't really compare trochaic verse with iambic verse when you're discussing feminine endings, and so that song should not be included in an average with the rhymed iambic verse in The Tempest. The end of a regular line of trochaic verse looks like a feminine ending of a line of iambic verse (a stressed syllable followed by an unstressed one, as in "blessing" or "empty"), and the same words can be used in both contexts. To get a "feminine" ending for a line of trochaic verse, you'd have to use a dactylic word or phrase (e.g. "Pericles"), which are rare at the end of a line, much rarer than iambic words or phrases. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 20:26:58 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0173 Malfi Video; Jewish Othello; Info on CD-ROMS Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0173. Wednesday, 6 March 1996. (1) From: Harry Rusche Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 15:52:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0167 Re: Malfi Video (2) From: Rebecca J. Shapiro Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 96 23:00:07 EST Subj: A Jewish Othello (3) From: Shannon Murray Date: Wednesday, 06 Mar 1996 08:58:19 -0400 (AST) Subj: Re: Info on CD-ROMS (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This the information about _Duchess_ from the Emory University audio-visual catalog: Personal author: Webster, John, 1580?-1625? Title: The Duchess of Malfi. [Videorecording] / John Webster ; produced by BBC-TV and Time-Life Films, 1976. Physical description: 3 cassettes, 123 min. : sd., col. ; 3/4 in. Series: Classic theatre. [Videorecording]. Abstract: Webster's tragedy has a great deal of action and a conclusion which finds most of the leading characters dead. I rather like the abstract! (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rebecca J. Shapiro Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 96 23:00:07 EST Subject: A Jewish Othello I am not a member of this list, although I happened to be looking over the shoulder of one when I read Florence Amit's post ruminating on Othello's potential Jewishness. While she is literally correct about the transliteration/translation of the possible Hebrew morphemes "ot" meaning "sign," and "el" meaning "G-d," the word "otello" could just as easily be broken into stems such as "o," "tel," and "o," which are not helpful to her theory. Additionally, the masculine ending "o" she tacks on to the Hebrew instead suggests Romance languages. At least until the nineteenth century, Jews, like other Orientals, were called "blacks" and "Moors" and so to confuse the two is not unusual, especially if they had Sephardic heritage. Perhaps she could clarify? Rebecca Shapiro Department of English Purdue University rshapiro@mace.cc.purdue.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shannon Murray Date: Wednesday, 06 Mar 1996 08:58:19 -0400 (AST) Subject: Re: Info on CD-ROMS I've just noticed one reference in the University of Alberta's newsletter: a CD Rom called *Playing Shakespeare: Text and Performance*. It's apparently a collaboration between the Open University BBC and the U. of A's drama department. More info is available on the WWW, and the home page's creator is Prof. Stephen Reimer at the University of Alberta's English Department. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 20:31:10 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0174 Re: Pens and Pencils Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0174. Wednesday, 6 March 1996. (1) From: Russell Meyer Date: Tuesday, 05 Mar 1996 15:26:41 -0600 Subj: Pen/Ink -Reply (2) From: John Mucci Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 19:52:45 -0500 Subj: Pen & ink (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russell Meyer Date: Tuesday, 05 Mar 1996 15:26:41 -0600 Subject: Pen/Ink -Reply Stephanie Hughes is right: pencils came into use in England in 1500 and were first manufactured there in 1565, so there's little need for a Renaissance Bic to take notes. Russ Meyer Emporia State University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Mucci Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 19:52:45 -0500 Subject: Pen & ink Ink horns were a very common accoutrement for a scribe, which were worn either slung around the waist or worn around the neck. In the videotape of Bride Media's CDRom *Macbeth*, the Doctor makes use of the inkhorn and quill during the sleepwalking scene. As for pencils, the annotations in the Folger's DeVere Bible are partially written in pencil. What I am amazed at is the idea that pen *nibs* were available at the time (itemized in de Vere's purchase with the Bible), which I'd have thought was much later. After all-- where did you put the nib? In the quill? As an aside, I always find it interesting to see in period films that characters use quills with feathers on them; in most books on calligraphy and writing with pen and ink, one of the first instructions is to remove the feathers, which tend to get in the way. John Mucci GTE VisNet ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 20:33:39 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0175 Announcement: Early Orson Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0175. Wednesday, 6 March 1996. From: Bernice W. Kilman Date: Tuesday, 05 Mar 1996 08:30:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Announcement Announcement Richard France is eager to present his lecture-screening Early Orson: the years Before Citizen Kane, which focuses on those few remarkable years (1934-1949) that Welles worked in NYC. Among other Welles productions, France focuses on the Mercury Shakespeare work. France can be reached at Box 10646 Portland, Maine 04104 (207) 883-6118 (207) 828-0760 (207) 773-6872 (Fax) [no e-mail] Aside from several prize-winning plays, France has written *The Theatre of Orson Welles,* a Choice selection for Most Outstanding Academic Books of 1978, its 1990 companion volume, *Orson Welles on Shakespeare,* and *Obediently Yours, Orson Welles,* a one-man play. France did graduate work in playwriting at the Yale School of Drama and earned a PhD in theater history at Carnegie-Mellon University. His fee is negotiable. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 20:35:23 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0176 Q: Reviews of *Rival Playwrights* Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0176. Wednesday, 6 March 1996. From: Simon Malloch Date: Wednesday, 6 Mar 1996 12:09:42 +0800 (WST) Subject: Reviews of _Rival Playwrights_? I have just picked up James Shapiro's book, _Rival Playwrights: Marlowe, Jonson, Shakespeare_, and was wondering if anyone could refer to me to any reviews. Any help appreciated. Simon Malloch ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 20:49:36 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0177 Lori Berenson File Updated Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0177. Wednesday, 6 March 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, March 6, 1996 Subject: Lori Berenson File Updated I have just updated the Lori Berenson file (LORI BERENSON). which may be retreived from from the SHAKSPER Fileserver. To retrieve this file, send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET LORI BERENSON". Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, please contact the editor at or . PS: There is still a problem that affects some addresses -- my own included -- that causes mail sent to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu to "loop" and be rejected because of an excess of "hops." Should your request for this file generate such an error, please use the following address: LISTSERV@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 20:17:51 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0178 Re: About This List Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0178. Thursday, 7 March 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 06 Mar 1996 16:55:54 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0165 Re: About This List (2) From: Chris Gordon Date: Wednesday, 6 Mar 96 18:54:45 -0600 Subj: SHK 7.0170 Two mailing lists (3) From: Michael Saenger Date: Wednesday, 6 Mar 1996 23:43:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: About This List (4) From: Susan Mather Date: Thursday, 7 Mar 1996 12:35:13 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0170 Re: About This List (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 06 Mar 1996 16:55:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0165 Re: About This List >There are whole subject topics on SHAKSPER that are of no interest to me. >Thankfully Hardy groups posts together under a subject title and I simply >delete them without reading. Readers of mailing lists have to develop the >skills to separate what they want from what they don't. > >Timothy Reed >The Upstart Crow Theatre Company >Boulder, Colorado This comment seems right on target to me. If you don't like it, don't read it. If you like it a little bit, skim it. Didn't Bacon write something like that? Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Gordon Date: Wednesday, 6 Mar 96 18:54:45 -0600 Subject: SHK 7.0170 Two mailing lists While I respect the many intelligent academic critics writing about Shakespeare, if this list were limited to their exchanges, I suspect that I might get rather bored. The delight of SHAKSPER for me has been its variety, ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. Yes, some discussions recur, and some go on for too long perhaps, but as other have pointed out, that's why we have a delete key. I love the interesting backgrounds and current interests of all the participants, especially those active in theater. I have always believed that Shakespeare is for everyone; I think this list should be too. [And on a slightly different note: Michael Saenger's message refers to anarchy as "the rule of the loudest"; as someone who considers herself part of a long anarchist tradition, I suggest he do a little more research on this topic.] Chris Gordon (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Wednesday, 6 Mar 1996 23:43:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: About This List Liberty! freedom! Tyranny is dead! Run hence, proclaim, cry it about the streets. (JC 3.1.78-79) A few points: 1) The idea of scholarly quality has nothing to do with "openness" and "cultural studies," as one person suggested. African-American journals, for instance, reject many articles that are not carefully researched. They print GOOD articles, and so should we. I happen to be a leftist; politics have nothing to do with this. 2) What does "good" mean? In terms of scholarship, it means that the message is either coming from some one who has spent years educating him/herself, or it is coming from a person who has worked especially hard crafting that message. 3) How would you like to enrol in a university in which there were no professors? 4) The delete button. True, this works, but it requires a lot of extra time to use it properly. Many of us do not have that amount of free time. 5) Many of the voices who would support me no longer subscribe to the list. Does "openness" mean cutting them off? 6) Elitism is exactly what I am trying to combat. By clogging the list with discussions of Kenneth Branagh, we have chased the serious scholars off the list (with a few notable exceptions), leaving them to educate only their small number of students. In other words, the very freedom upon which cyberspace prides itself has given us the euphoria (and the moral self-righteousness) of a Roman mob. Yours, Michael Saenger (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Thursday, 7 Mar 1996 12:35:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0170 Re: About This List I guess I would like to know how "high level" is defined. Some things on this list that would appear to some as "high level", to others would appear strange and far fetched at best. Shakespeare studies have always had this problem -- some people -- God help them -- say that there is no possible way that a country boy like William Shakespeare could have written these plays. I am sure most have heard this argument. I guess what I am thinking then is that there really can be no splitting the line down between high brow/low brow discussions of Shakespeare without much prejudice. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 20:22:24 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0179 Re: Othello, a Christian? Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0179. Thursday, 7 March 1996. (1) From: Christine Jacobson Date: Wednesday, 06 Mar 1996 20:28:42 -0700 (MST) Subj: Othello, a Christian? (2) From: Florence Amit Date: Thursday, 07 Mar 1996 18:40:20 +0200 Subj: Re.: A Jewish Othello (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Jacobson Date: Wednesday, 06 Mar 1996 20:28:42 -0700 (MST) Subject: Othello, a Christian? This is in reply to Tunis Romein's posting asking the question as to whether or not Othello was actually a Christian. First of all, I agree wholeheartedly with D. Vittus's reply of March 2, 1996, in which he points out Othello's quote just before her stabs himself to de(death) at the end of the play and interprets it as Othello killing himself as a "Turk". Indeed, Othello sees himself as barbaric as the Turks he has slain. He has thrown away a "pearl" and can no longer consider himself a Christian. Also, it might be interesting to note that in the screenplay for the latest movie called "Othello", the screenwriter has Othello, Desdemona and Cassio standing before a priest on the ceremony of their wedding. This movie opens with that scene. Therefore, the screenwriter also feels it necessary to portray Othello as a Christian, does he not, as a non-Christian could not be permitted to a marriage with a Christian Desdemona in front of a priest. Do you agree? Wasn't the Christian church similar in its approach to mixed marriages in Elizabethean times as it is today? I have been considering this in the light of a Catholique (Christian) code of marriage rites as the setting for the play is Venice. Christine Jacobson, Medicine Hat College, Alberta, Canada. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Florence Amit Date: Thursday, 07 Mar 1996 18:40:20 +0200 Subject: Re.: A Jewish Othello Concerning the Hebrew masculine ending of Othello: The O is in Hebrew a Vav which has various pronounciations and Rebecca Shapiro is right, it is an 'O' only on paper in the case of the ending of Othello. If it were pronounced it might probably be preceded by a yod and sound like 'ov'. Still there are instances where the vav is a pronounced 'O'in an ending, like 'shello' meaning belonging to him or 'mimeno' meaning from him. Florence Amit ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 20:28:43 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0180 Re: Reviews of *Rival Playwrights* Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0180. Thursday, 7 March 1996. (1) From: James Harner Date: Thursday, 7 Mar 1996 7:45:40 -0600 (CST) Subj: Reviews of _Rival Playwrights_ (2) From: Naomi Liebler Date: Thursday, 7 Mar 96 10:12:00 EST Subj: RE: SHK 7.0176 Q: Reviews of *Rival Playwrights* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Harner Date: Thursday, 7 Mar 1996 7:45:40 -0600 (CST) Subject: Reviews of _Rival Playwrights_ The following reviews of James Shapiro's _Rival Playwrights_ is extracted from the _World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM_ (Cambridge UP, 1996- ). Anon._Virginia Quarterly Review_ 67 (1991): 122; Buchert, J. R._Choice_ 29 (1991-92): 596; Ardolino, Frank._Sixteenth Century Journal_ 23 (1992): 360-61; Ashley, L. R. N._Bibliotheque<42> d'Humanisme et Renaissance_ 54 (1992): 491-539 (especially 534-35); Knutson, Roslyn L._Shakespeare Bulletin_ 10, no. 2 (1992): 38-39; McDonald, Russ._Modern Philology_ 91 (1993-94): 487-90; Smith, Bruce R._Studies in English Literature 1500-1900_ 33 (1993): 425-87 (especially 445); Vaughan, Virginia Mason._Shakespeare Quarterly_ 44 (1993): 110-11; Wiggins, Martin._Shakespeare Survey_ 45 (1993): 175-92 (especially 186-87). Jim Harner (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Liebler Date: Thursday, 7 Mar 96 10:12:00 EST Subject: RE: SHK 7.0176 Q: Reviews of *Rival Playwrights* Simon Malloch seeks reviews of Jim Shapiro's *Rival Playwrights.* The annual Bibliography issue of SHakespeare Quarterly is a comprehensive index of just about everything published on SHakespeare in the year preceding. It even includes citations of book reviews. You look up in the author index of each issue the name of the author whose book you're interested in. You locate the citation number within the bibliography itself. You find the book listed there, and beneath the listing itself, you find citations of reviews that have come out in the past year. For example, on p. 579 of the 1993 Bibliography issue, Shapiro's book is listed at item 1171. Three reviews are listed just below the entry. Since the book came out in 1991, you might want to check the Bibliography issues for 1992, and when it becomes available, for 1994 as well. Happy hunting. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 20:35:12 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0181 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0181. Thursday, 7 March 1996. (1) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 6 Mar 1996 19:47:03 -0800 Subj: Funeral Elegy (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 07 Mar 1996 16:16:53 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0172 Re: Funeral Elegy (3) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 7 Mar 1996 18:13:53 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0172 Re: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 6 Mar 1996 19:47:03 -0800 Subject: Funeral Elegy Don Foster objects that I used 3 short quotes from a handout he wrote. This was in regard to the John Ford question--might he have written the Funeral Elegy? But that 6-page handout was a "publication" and so is defined by the United State Copyright Office. If you don't want it spread around, don't pass it out. Your copyright is protected of course (it's copyrighted when you write it), but reviewers, disenters, orators, scholars and laymen may take quotations from it within a certain rather liberal limit, if they choose to address the subject. I did not make a breach of professional etiquette in using Foster's own words, which I did in moderation, and I stayed close upon his argument so far as I knew what it was from the material he had passed out, which, not to press on it too much, constitutes publication. As to my motive in all this. Foster makes it to be sinister, and yet I think he sincerely believes that Shakespeare wrote the Funeral Elegy. I'd like to believe it, too. I'd like to find out if Shakespeare had anything to do with the writing of the King James Bible as well, published in 1611, Oxford being almost as dead as he was in 1612. I'd like to see some good scholarly research on that. My sincere effort to know more about the Funeral Elegy and John Ford's friendliness with the William Peter family is put aside by Foster. He says that I am "on a hunt for conspiracy." This has come to mean that you're rather a coo-coo case, an ad hominem sort of comment we'd want less of. However, some 20% of all Elizabethan poetry and plays is of doubtful authorship. The quest for attribution is always going on. The Funeral Elegy is just another, but has received the great haloo because it's about Shakespeare. The whole world wants some- thing new from Shakespeare. But to me, the Funeral Elegy seems such a shame and insult to the man, all that self- rightousness set off in bad poetry. So I'm sorry, I do get over- excited a bit, and I mean to insult no one, but only to let Shakespeare escape such an insult. At last, Don Foster quotes some of my words to him out of a private letter in order to make an ass of me. That's all right, I won't sue, but it's certainly a breach of professional etiquette. Private letters are not like hand-outs. But let it pass. My skepticism has been, I believe, "intelligent and thoughtful," as Foster suggests, and I wish for more of it without any defining of my motives or sincerity in the quest to find anything at any date that Shakespeare might have written. To end, you may use anything I've ever published, you may quote me freely from all public sources, you may jump on anything I've ever said about anything. You need not have my permission, it's all public property. Of course, my opinion might be different now about a lot of things. I've been wrong in the past, and I'd like to be wrong about the Funeral Elegy, but I say it just isn't close to Shakespeare. I've let my attorney know that if I make a deathbed retraction about that he can publish it. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 07 Mar 1996 16:16:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0172 Re: Funeral Elegy Regarding Dave Kathman's comments on criteria and my vague response, let me clarify briefly. It seems to me that the figures used for enjambement in FE (by those who would ascribe the play to Shakespeare) are geared to the figures for enjambement in the last plays. Shakespeare enjambed more and more as he got older. So the figures used for feminine endings should be taken from the same source -- the last plays. To take one set of figures from the last plays, and another set of figures from the non-dramatic poetry seems bad form -- to me. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 7 Mar 1996 18:13:53 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0172 Re: Funeral Elegy David Kathman has backed away from an assertion he originally offered as refutation of the discrepancy between the 11.6 % of lines in FE having feminine endings and the 30+% of lines having feminine endings in late Shakespearean verse. Kathman's response was that only examples of rhymed verse were comparable with FE, and these also give a figure of around 10%. As justification for excluding the blank verse Kathman writes: > Whatever the ultimate reason may >be, the fact remains that there are many fewer feminine endings in rhymed >elegiac verse written around the time of W.S.'s Elegy than there are in blank >verse plays written around the same time by the same authors. That seems like >a relevant thing to know in this discussion. It may be a relevant thing to know, but it won't support the weight Kathman puts on it. Suppose there is a convention that you rein back your use of feminine endings when writing an elegy; this would fit all the facts cited in Kathman's posting of 2 March. Kathman's assertion that you can compare FE with early Shakespeare verse and draw useful conclusions from correspondences has not yet been supported by any evidence. Selective sampling of correspondences is not going to make a lasting case for Shakespeare's authorship of FE. Possibly this discussion should end now; I quote from a couple of comments on a different thread: >Heated discussions back and forth between two opposing members on >some obscure topic are generally not of interest to the masses; the >members in question should relegate their argument to private e-mail. and >Will John Drakakis' witty, left of center attacks on empiricism or >essentialism be deemed less worthy than, say, the less exciting, more >conventionally scholarly discussions of feminine endings in the FE? Unless someone else joins in I shall hold my peace on the FE's in FE. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 20:39:02 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0182 Re: Elizabethean Society, Cleanliness? Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0182. Thursday, 7 March 1996. From: Christine Jacobson Date: Thursday, 07 Mar 1996 16:18:41 -0700 (MST) Subject: Elizabethean Society, Cleanliness? This is in response to Michael Best, Department of English, University of Victoria's interest in information pertaining to customs of hygiene in Elizabethean England. Dear Michael: Your posting of February 26, 1996 interested me. I have two books to recommend that I believe will give you some more information regarding this question. The first publication is: The Structures of Everyday Life (Civilization & Capitalism, 15th - 18thCentury) Volume 1 by: Fernand Braudel Harper & Row, publishers. The 4th Chapter, "Superfluity and Sufficiency: Houses, Clothes and Fashion" might be of some help and in any case, this book is a good read. It also speaks of the spread of disease and its subsequent relationship to evolution in housing structure and materials. The second publication is: The First Elizabeth by: Carolly Erickson Summit Books, New York, publisher. Chapter 20, "To Laugh, to lie, to flatter, to face, Four waies in Court to win men grace.", is also an interesting read on the royal household and the costumes and customary ways in which staff were treated and were fed. I hope this helps. Christine Jacobson - CJACOB@acd.mhc.ab.ca ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 20:40:49 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0183 Q: Performance of Parodies Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0183. Thursday, 7 March 1996. From: David Wintersteen Date: Thursday, 7 Mar 1996 16:52:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Performance of Parodies Dear SHAKSPERians, I am a dedicated lurker working on my dissertation, and I could use your help. I am researching contemporary Shakespearean parodies and need some supporting materials and information. I'm looking for videos of the Reduced Shakespeare Company's _Compleat Works_ and Anne-Marie MacDonald's _Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet)_. Also, I am compiling a list of performances of parodies of Shakespeare in the 20th Century. Please send me any information you have regarding titles, dates, and places of performance. I am looking for staged theatrical performances only, no films, books, etc. Once the list is complete, I will make a copy available to the SHAKSPER group. Thanks for your help! David Wintersteen University of Oregon dtw@darkwing.uoregon.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 21:33:06 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0184 Lost Messages Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0184. Friday, 8 March 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, March 8, 1996 Subject: Lost Messages Dear SHAKSPEReans, We had a glich today with LISTSERV and some message may have been lost in the process. If you do not see, something you submitted in the batch of digests you are about to receive, please resubmit and accept my apologies. --Hardy Cook Editor ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 21:36:55 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0185 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0185. Friday, 8 March 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 07 Mar 1996 21:10:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0172 Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 8 Mar 1996 08:53:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0172 Re: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 07 Mar 1996 21:10:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0172 Re: Funeral Elegy Today while I was looking for something in the STC microfilms, I found another candidate (I think) for W.S.. In Charles Butler's *The Feminine Monarchie* (London: Printed by Iohn Haviland, 1623), STC 4193, there is dedicatory poem "Ad Carolum Butler" in Latin signed Warnervs Sovth. This is the only edition of this work that I have had a chance to examine so far. There is a period after "Sovth." so the name may be an abbreviation. The subtitle of Butler's work is *The Historie of Bees,* and Edmund Southerne wrote a treatise on bees in 1593 (STC 22942). Is it possible that the name of the poet is Warner Southerne? I've looked in Don Foster's index and find no reference to Warnervs Sovth or to Charles Butler. So, Don has either rejected Warnervs Sovth as a possible W.S., or he has not considered Sovth's -- admittedly -- minor claim. Warnervs Sovth was probably an Oxford man (Charles Butler was) -- and thus may have met William Peter at Oxford. Of course, his dedicatory poem comes eleven years after the *Funeral Elegy,* and further investigation may prove that Warnervs Sovth was only ten years old in 1612! Or, that his name was Southwell Warner! But I throw this W.S. into the ring -- cum grano salis. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 8 Mar 1996 08:53:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0172 Re: Funeral Elegy In response to Don Foster's recent post on the Funeral Elegy: The main arguments against this poem have probably all been presented, so there seems little point in repeating them. As for some political reason for the anti-Stratfordians to denigrate the poem, the opposite could also be said, that the Stratfordians have the exact same reason for promoting the poem, i.e., that its acceptance (including the authorship, reason for writing, and date of composition) as Shakespeare's will silence those who would like to see this kind of scholarly diligence directed toward the much more interesting question of who really wrote the works of Shakespeare. Since Shakespeare professionals have been accepting far greater anomalies for some four hundred years, their acceptance of this poem will make no difference to those who cannot marry the biography of Shakespeare of Stratford with the reality of the works. The weakness of the poem, the uncertainty of its authorship, time of writing, and reason for writing, can only raise again the question, why is there no biography for Shakespeare when a writer like Ben Jonson is fully documented? I will say no more on this subject since we have agreed to stay away from the authorship issue on this list, but since Don Foster was allowed to have his say regarding the anti-Stratfordians reasons for disliking the poem, I should have the right to respond. Those who wish to take the matter further are welcome to post to me directly. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 21:49:11 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0186 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: Foster's Edited Version of FREPLY Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0186. Friday, 8 March 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, March 8, 1996 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: Foster's Edited Version of FE As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve Don Foster's edited text of "A Funeral Elegy." (FUNERAL ELEGY) from the SHAKSPER Fileserver. What had been made available previously was an archive-copy in which all ellisions have been expanded, and substantive errors have been introduced. To retrieve "A Funeral Elegy," send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET FUNERAL ELEGY". Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, please contact the editor at or . PS: There is still a problem that affects some addresses -- my own included -- that causes mail sent to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu to "loop" and be rejected because of an excess of "hops." Should your request for this file generate such an error, please use the following address: LISTSERV@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu ******************************************************************************* W[illiam] S[hakespeare], "A Funeral Elegy." Edited by Donald W. Foster from W.S., A Funerall Elegye in memory of the late vertuous Maister William Peeter (London: G. Eld for T. Thorpe, 1612). [4,600 words.] Common nouns capitalized and italicized in Q are here capitalized but not italicized; italicized quotations in Q are rendered in quotation marks. Participial endings and ellisions may be normalized for use with a private text archive. DWF (1/15/96) TO MASTER JOHN PETER of Bowhay in Devon, Esquire. The love I bore to your brother, and will do to his memory, hath crav'd from me this last duty of a friend; I am herein but a second to the privilege of Truth, who can warrant more in his behalf than I undertook to deliver. Exercise in this kind I will little affect, and am less addicted to, but there must be miracle in that labor which, to witness my remembrance to this departed gentleman, I would not willingly undergo. Yet whatsoever is here done, is done to him, and to him only. For whom and whose sake I will not forget to remember any friendly respects to you, or to any of those that have lov'd him for himself, and himself for his deserts. W. S. A FUNERAL ELEGY Since Time, and his predestinated end, Abridg'd the circuit of his hopeful days, Whiles both his Youth and Virtue did intend The good endeavors of deserving praise, 5 What memorable monument can last Whereon to build his never-blemish'd name But his own worth, wherein his life was grac'd- Sith as [that] ever he maintain'd the same? Oblivion in the darkest day to come, 10 When sin shall tread on merit in the dust, Cannot rase out the lamentable tomb Of his short-liv'd deserts; but still they must, Even in the hearts and memories of men, Claim fit Respect, that they, in every limb 15 Rememb'ring what he was, with comfort then May pattern out one truly good, by him. For he was truly good, if honest care Of harmless conversation may commend A life free from such stains as follies are, 20 Ill recompensed only in his end. Nor can the tongue of him who lov'd him least (If there can be minority of love To one superlative above the rest Of many men in steady faith) reprove 25 His constant temper, in the equal weight Of thankfulness and kindness: Truth doth leave Sufficient proof, he was in every right As kind to give, as thankful to receive. The curious eye of a quick-brain'd survey 30 Could scantly find a mote amidst the sun Of his too-short'ned days, or make a prey Of any faulty errors he had done- Not that he was above the spleenful sense And spite of malice, but for that he had 35 Warrant enough in his own innocence Against the sting of some in nature bad. Yet who is he so absolutely blest That lives encompass'd in a mortal frame, Sometime in reputation not oppress'd 40 By some in nothing famous but defame? Such in the By-path and the Ridgeway lurk That leads to ruin, in a smooth pretense Of what they do to be a special work Of singleness, not tending to offense; 45 Whose very virtues are, not to detract Whiles hope remains of gain (base fee of slaves), Despising chiefly men in fortunes wrack'd- But death to such gives unrememb'red graves. Now therein liv'd he happy, if to be 50 Free from detraction happiness it be. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 21:57:53 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0187 Re: Character; About This List; Parodies Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0187. Friday, 8 March 1996. (1) From: Florence Amit Date: Friday, 08 Mar 1996 10:31:01 +0200 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0136 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and (2) From: Charles S. Ross Date: Friday, 8 Mar 1996 08:45:45 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0178 Re: About This List (3) From: John Ramsay Date: Friday, 8 Mar 1996 00:54:01 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0183 Q: Performance of Parodies (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Florence Amit Date: Friday, 08 Mar 1996 10:31:01 +0200 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0136 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and >I had thought that the "character" debate had really run itself into the >ground, and was determined to exercise as much restraint as I could, lest I >diorientate Steve Urkowitz more than is good for him. But Clark Bowlen's >commnet crystallizes what a number of other contributors to the debate have >edged towards: that there is clearly a confusion between reading a >Shakespearean text, and the demands that actors might place upon it. > >Bowlen argues that "Playwrights must leave room for actors to create the >emotional life of the characters within themselves out of their own flesh and >feelings and imagination". The most eloquent defence of this approach is, of >course John Russell Brown's Shakespeare's Plays in Performance (1966). What >is, of course missing from assertions such as that of Bowlen that the actor >suppies the same kinds of information about a "character" that a novelist >supplies by other means, is any kind of statement about what it IS that is >supplied. The tacit assumption seems to be that either "Shakespeare" is the >"character" behind his texts which it is the hermeneutic task of the critic to >discover, or it is "the actor" who provides the insight into "character" out of >her/his "own flesh and feelings and imagination". In either case, whether the >resource for this is Shakespeare's "genius", or the actor's inner life, the >problem still remains: where do the "feelings and imagination" come from. >Bowlen speaks as though they have some kind of independent existence amenable >to empirical study. My point is that like the concept of "character" they >emanate from a constellation of ideological assumptions. Simply to assert that >a Shakespearean text (agumented by the actor's performance) is doing the same >as a novelist but by another means exacerbates the very essentialist knot that >I would like to see untied. That, of course, says nothing about the assumption >that a Shakespearean theatrical representation is the means by which we locate >some form of unchanging human nature, hence the actor can share with the >dramatist the task of unfolding to the spectator what everybody always knew >about the inner lives of individuals. What Bowlen, and others seem unable or >unwilling to concede is that their very notion of "character" imposed on a >Shakespearean text produces an anachronism. No, I cannot agree that it is just a toss up between an elusive person called William or a boyant actor that we have when we look for character in the plays. There is this aspect of the Luthern Hamlet or of Plutarch's Caesar: that the characer is built up carefully layer upon historic layer with a great deal of empathy and insight. How does a poet empathize with someone he distains and whose acts are abhorrent to him? It is too important to be left to the chance actor. He studies more. He delves deeper. Iago becomes the disguised egocentric pitting himself against all the "clowns" that he encounters. He is the trickster of the Tarot pack and he is the representative of the collective racial ego. The whole self in the middle is absent. Shakespeare is Jungian more than Jung as he is Freudian more than Freud. Florence Amit (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles S. Ross Date: Friday, 8 Mar 1996 08:45:45 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0178 Re: About This List I oppose splitting the list but I am in favor of brevity. Prof. William Ringler used to say that scholars have a duty to say more and write less. This is terrible advice for things like tenure and academic promotion, I have found, but it strikes me as just right for SHAKSPER. Charles Ross (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Ramsay Date: Friday, 8 Mar 1996 00:54:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0183 Q: Performance of Parodies 'Goodnight Desdemona' is being revived in Toronto right now but I do not believe it was ever a video. Toronto comedians Wayne and Shuster did 'Julius Caesar' on the Ed Sullivan show in the 50's. Are you looking strictly for videos? John Ramsay Welland, Ontario, Canada jramsay@freenet.npiec.on.ca ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 22:00:11 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0188 Chaste Maid in Cheapside Production Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0188. Friday, 8 March 1996. From: Ed Gieskes Date: Friday, 8 Mar 1996 09:57:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Chaste Maid in Cheapside Production Willing Suspension Productions presents: Thomas Middleton's _A Chaste Maid in Cheapside_ Directed by Andrew Hartley and Kirk Melnikoff Assistant Director Jill Orofino Friday, March 29 @ 8PM Saturday, March 30 @ 2PM and 7:30PM Sunday, March 31 @ 2PM and 7:30PM Performances will be held at Boston University's School for the Arts, 855 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA, Room 104. Willing Suspension is a company founded by Boston University English Department graduate students for a production of Middleton's _Revenger's Tragedy_ in 1993. Since then, we have mounted successful productions of Ben Jonson's _The Alchemist_ and, last year, Thomas Kyd's _The Spanish Tragedy_. The company is dedicated to performing non-Shakespearean early modern drama. For more information: email Kirk Melnikoff (kbazler@bu.edu) with a mailing address and we will send flyers and additional information. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 22:03:21 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0189 World Shakespeare Conference Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0189. Friday, 8 March 1996. From: Martin Zacks Date: Thursday, 7 Mar 1996 23:53:04 -0800 Subject: World Shakespeare Conference Los Angeles Public Library. April 9, Tuesday Sixth World Shakespeare Conference presents: "A Century of Shakespeare on Screen." Rare Shakespeare films screening throughout the afternoon and evening including, Othello, Germany, 1922; Macbeth, USSR/Wales, 1992; Hamlet, A Drama of Vengeance, Germany, 1920. 1:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. April 10, Wednesday Continued: King Lear, USA, 1916; Twelfth Night, USSR, 1955; The Bad Sleep Well (Warui Yatsu Hodo Yoku Numuru), Japan, 1960. 1:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. April 13, Saturday Continued: Taming of the Shrew, USA, 1950; The Tragedy of Othello: The Moor of Venice, Morocco/Italy, 1952; A Midsummer Night's Dream, Spain, 1984. 11:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. "All programs are free of charge and in the main auditorium of the downtown Central Library." ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 08:09:08 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0190 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0190. Sunday, 10 March 1996. (1) From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Saturday, 9 Mar 1996 00:26:20 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0181 Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 09 Mar 1996 12:00:55 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0185 Re: Funeral Elegy (3) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Saturday, 9 Mar 1996 19:03:03 -0800 Subj: Dr. Dodypoll (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Saturday, 9 Mar 1996 00:26:20 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0181 Re: Funeral Elegy Just a couple of brief comments. Bill Godshalk writes: >Regarding Dave Kathman's comments on criteria and my vague response, let me >clarify briefly. It seems to me that the figures used for enjambement in FE >(by those who would ascribe the play to Shakespeare) are geared to the figures >for enjambement in the last plays. Shakespeare enjambed more and more as he >got older. So the figures used for feminine endings should be taken from the >same source -- the last plays. To take one set of figures from the last plays, >and another set of figures from the non-dramatic poetry seems bad form -- to >me. Yes, it's true that Shakespeare enjambed more often as he got older, and that Foster compares the enjambment in FE with that in the late plays. But it's a non sequitur to say that therefore you should also compare the feminine endings in FE with those in the late plays; they're separate issues which need to be evaluated separately. Shakespeare's use of enjambment increased over time in both his plays and in his non-dramatic poetry, involving similar percentages, and there is no reason not to compare FE with the late plays. With feminine endings, though, the plays and the non-dramatic verse differ, as I've been arguing: feminine endings increased steadily in Shakespeare's plays, as they did in Elizabethan plays in general, but they held steady or arguably decreased in his nondramatic verse, much as they did in Elizabethan rhymed verse in general. Given a choice between comparing the feminine endings in FE with the blank verse of the late plays or with the nondramatic poems, I've been arguing that the nondramatic poems are a better choice, even though neither choice is ideal. The nondramatic poems differ from FE in terms of date, but I've argued that that doesn't appear to be a very significant factor in rhymed verse; the late plays differ from FE in being almost entirely blank verse, which I've argued is a very significant factor since blank verse tends to have more feminine endings than rhymed verse. I am still puzzled by many of Gabriel Egan's statements, but I agree that there's no need to continue the feminine endings discussions here unless there's a groundswell of support from other quarters. I've tried to articulate my positions as clearly as I can, and people are free to judge what's been said in this discussion as they see fit. Bill Godshalk writes: >Today while I was looking for something in the STC microfilms, I found another >candidate (I think) for W.S.. In Charles Butler's *The Feminine Monarchie* >(London: Printed by Iohn Haviland, 1623), STC 4193, there is dedicatory poem >"Ad Carolum Butler" in Latin signed Warnervs Sovth. This is the only edition >of this work that I have had a chance to examine so far. > >There is a period after "Sovth." so the name may be an abbreviation. The >subtitle of Butler's work is *The Historie of Bees,* and Edmund Southerne wrote >a treatise on bees in 1593 (STC 22942). Is it possible that the name of the >poet is Warner Southerne? > >I've looked in Don Foster's index and find no reference to Warnervs Sovth or to >Charles Butler. So, Don has either rejected Warnervs Sovth as a possible W.S., >or he has not considered Sovth's -- admittedly -- minor claim. > >Warnervs Sovth was probably an Oxford man (Charles Butler was) -- and thus may >have met William Peter at Oxford. > >Of course, his dedicatory poem comes eleven years after the *Funeral Elegy,* >and further investigation may prove that Warnervs Sovth was only ten years old >in 1612! Or, that his name was Southwell Warner! > >But I throw this W.S. into the ring -- cum grano salis. Actually, Don Foster did cite Warner South in his list of all works by people with the initials W.S. between 1570 and 1630. The first edition of Butler's *The Feminine Monarchie* (STC 4192) was in 1609, so it was closer to FE than you thought. South also had a Latin poem in Thomas Vicars' *Cheiragogia*, the third edition of which was in 1628. According to the list, Warner South (or "Warnerus South, Jurista Novi Collegii Socius") was born in 1586 and was Canon of Wells. Since both of his known works are in Latin, there's not much basis for comparison with the Elegy. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 09 Mar 1996 12:00:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0185 Re: Funeral Elegy (a) Yesterday, in the 1609 edition of *The Feminine Monarchie* (Oxford, Printed by Ioseph Barnes, 1609), I found the following signature to the commendatory poem "Ad Authorem" (a4v): Warnervs Sovth, Iurista Novi Collegij Socius. So Warnerus Sovth was writing Latin poetry in 1609. But I must also record that, in Charles Butler's *The English Grammar* (Oxford, Printed by Willimam Turner, for the Authour: 1633), there is an "Ad Authorem* signed S.W. The poem is NOT the same as the poem in the 1609 *Feminine Monarchie.* My point is NOT that Warnervs Sovth wrote *The Funeral Elegy,* but that there may have been another W.S. who was a poet, and who needs to be added to the list of possible authors. (b) Notice that *The English Grammar* (above) was printed "for the Authour" and this is so stated on the title page. I would suggest that this is good evidence that *The English Grammar* was privately printed. Also notice that *The Funeral Elegy* contains no such designation. Why is this an important issue? Those who would ascribe FE to Shakespeare can NOT prove that FE was privately printed. (Take that assertion as a challenge!) It may have been, but there's no hard evidence (as far as I know). And they need FE to have been privately printed with no, or limited, circulation. Otherwise, how can they account for its being unknown as Shakespeare's for almost 400 years? I would like to see Don Foster's evidence that Ford acknowledged the FE as Shakespeare's. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Saturday, 9 Mar 1996 19:03:03 -0800 Subject: Dr. Dodypoll If I were to discover a new poem or play by Shakespeare, I'd discover these few lines and say that Shakespeare wrote them. "T'was I that led you through the painted meads, Where the light fairies danced upon the flowers, Hanging on every leaf an orient pearl, Which, struck together with the silken wind Of their loose mantles, made a silver chime. T'was I that, winding my shrill bugle horn, Made a gilt palace break out of the hill, Filled suddenly with troops of knights and dames, Who danced and revelled; whilst we sweetly slept Upon a bed of roses, wrapt all in gold." But that's not Shakespeare. The author of the above is entirely unknown. But we know that in the Merchant of Venice Shakespeare wrote this: "Here we will sit, and let the sounds of music creep in our ears. Soft stillness and the night become the touches of sweet harmony. Sit, Jessica. Look how the floor of heaven Is thick inlaid with patens of bright gold. There's not the smallest orb which thou behold'st But in his motion like an angel sings, Still quiring to the young-eyed cherubins: Such harmony is in immortal souls; But whilst this muddy vesture of decay Doth grossly close it in, we cannot hear it." There seems to be a poetic touch between those two poems much more than any clutch of lines that would make us think that Shakespeare wrote the Funeral Elegy. And that's what wanted, I believe, some certain poetic expression that approves to our poetic souls that we are reading words written by the man himself, which recognition seems not to happen between the Funeral Elegy and any other Shakespeare poem. That's the problem entirely. W.S. of the Funeral Elegy gives us no satisfaction at all, if we are looking to read some beautiful poetry. The above anonymous quotation that harkens so much to those sweet lines from the Merchant of Venice was published in 1600. The play is called "The Wisdom of Doctor Dodypoll", and I hope to acquaint the unknowers of it (which is almost everyone I think) with some more of the comedy, "As it hath bene sundrie times Acted by the Children of Powles." ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 08:17:14 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0191 Re: The List; Chaste Maid; Parodies; CD ROMs Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0191. Sunday, 10 March 1996. (1) From: Florence Amit Date: Saturday, 09 Mar 1996 12:08:33 +0200 Subj: The List (2) From: Gavin H Witt Date: Saturday, 9 Mar 96 4:18:28 CST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0188 Chaste Maid in Cheapside Production (3) From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 09 Mar 1996 14:14:18 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0187 Re: Parodies (4) From: Derek Hamilton Date: Saturday, 9 Mar 1996 20:12:36 -0400 Subj: Shakespeare on CD ROM (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Florence Amit Date: Saturday, 09 Mar 1996 12:08:33 +0200 Subject: The List As Susan Mather suggests, just as the Ellizabethan theater was an unparalleled opportunity for Shakespeare, the electronic conference may be for people who did not get their degrees on time, like women, actors and other late comers. Florence Amit (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gavin H Witt Date: Saturday, 9 Mar 96 4:18:28 CST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0188 Chaste Maid in Cheapside Production What a delight to hear that others are devoting themselves to non-Shakespearean early modern drama, a body of work all too often left unexplored by American companies--puzzlingly, given the rich and wondrous body of theatrical texts (non-royalty, at that) available, with tremendously contemporary concerns. Best of luck with _Revenger's Tragedy_. Interesting how the tragedies seem to attract relatively more attention; _'Tis Pity_, _Duchess_, _White Devil_, etc. Who's seen a production of _The Shoemaker's Holiday_ or _The Island Princess_ lately? I'm a member of a new Equity ensemble in Chicago, greasy joan & co., with a similar mission to produce neglected classics (though with a somewhat broader perspective than only early modern). Our production of _The Changeling_ opens on March 15 and plays Thu-Sun through April 14 at Famous Door Theatre in Chicago. Anyone in the area or passing through should feel more than welcome to attend; we'd love to have you. I'm interested to know if there is anyone else on the list who similarly finds themselves, with no slackened loyalty to the supreme achievement of Shakespeare's literary or dramatic art, seeking out the full range of E'bethan and Jacobean drama in production. What has your experience been with audiences reception of these works, given that they will tend to hold them up to the most familiar model, namely Shakespeare or possibly Jonson? Gavin Witt ghwitt@midway.uchicago.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 09 Mar 1996 14:14:18 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0187 Re: Parodies In my experience the best parodies were Alan Melville's on the BBC in the late fifties. He did the tavern scenes from the Henry IV's, full of forced jollity and the incomprehensible oaths and quiddities that provoked it...not unlike the RSC's *Much Ado* of 1991, as a matter of fact. Things such as "Take *that* for a swing'd codpiece!" and other much less accessible imprecations. Next in excellence for catching the sheer rapid boredom of historical/geographical pentameter was, of course, Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Michael Bentine, Alan Bennett et al in their "Hence, saucy Worcester" sketch at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe in 1959, revived in the popular "Beyond The Fringe". Parody is a loving art, is it not, depending on assured facility and empathy with the forms of the work parodied. Victor Borge collapsed this art into a broader comedy for a broader audience, all power to him, but one of the best remains Shakespeare's *The Mousetrap* in *Hamlet*, which provides pleasures of its own for the less initiated in the audience as well as the knowing and sometimes mean joys in those who recognise the full details of the parody. I knew a Shakespeare professor who taught *The Mousetrap*, that delicious piece of Danish Blue, with detailed praise, finding it some of the best verse in *Hamlet*. How's that for a tin ear? Harry Hill [work nearly complete on recording the Elegy unparodically] (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Derek Hamilton Date: Saturday, 9 Mar 1996 20:12:36 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare on CD ROM Dear Nora, The good news is that there is a *World Library's Greatest Books Collection* CD ROM which contains 150 titles including all Shakespeare's plays, the Bible, the Koran, and rather a lot of other titles of (mostly) American books. I paid $22. (Canadian) at a store in New Brunswick, Canada; I don't know what the thing would cost elsewhere. The address is World Library, Inc., 12914 Haster Street, Garden Grove, CA 92640, Tel. 714-748-7197; FAX 714-748-7198. The Bad news is that I don't know what the source text is, and there is no critical apparatus. The CD ROM works well as a concordance, though, if you don't care particularly about the accuracy of the text. Cheers, Derek Hamilton ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 08:18:48 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0192 Q: Bardolatry Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0192. Sunday, 10 March 1996. From: Joanne Woolway Date: Saturday, 9 Mar 1996 11:08:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Bardolatry Forgive my ignorance, but who coined the word "bardolatry"? Joanne Woolway emls@sable.ox.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 16:15:19 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0193 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0193. Monday, 11 March 1996. (1) From: Don Foster Date: Sunday, 10 Mar 1996 14:02:32 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 12:29:14 -0600 (CST) Subj: Funeral Elegy (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 13:26:22 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Funeral Elegy (4) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Sunday, 10 Mar 1996 21:35:41 -0800 Subj: Doctor Dodypoll (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Sunday, 10 Mar 1996 14:02:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Funeral Elegy I'm sorry to have upset Richard J. Kennedy. As I already said in my earlier post, he did me no harm by taking what he could glean from my unpublished handout, nor have I felt any injury. But if Mr. Kennedy wants members of this list to take seriously his view that the plays and poems of Shakespeare were written by Edward de Vere, then he should get his facts straight before he speaks--or remain silent. By borrowing from my handout without having attended my talk, Mr. Kennedy first confused himself, then readers of this list: he has simply misstated the facts with respect to John Ford. We all know, by now, that Mr. Kennedy thinks "A Funeral Elegy" to be the single most wretched piece of rhyming drivel that he ever laid eyes on, which is certainly an okay thing for him to say. But aesthetic impressions have scarcely any evidentiary value. Various posts subscribed with Mr. Kennedy's name have been distributed to SHAKSPERians in recent weeks. If one or two readers of this list find his posts badly written, shrill in tone, and factually inaccurate, it would not be wise--on those grounds alone--for us to conclude that Mr. Kennedy did not actually write them. Mr. Kennedy's co-religionist, Joseph Sobran, has published an article saying that Will Peter was married just eight days at the time of his murder; that "A Funeral Elegy" was written years before the murder; that it was not written for Peter, but for someone else; and much more nonsense having no point of contact with the real world. Such perverse disregard for the facts only muddies our discussion, making it harder for an intelligent and well-informed skepticism--as per that of Godschalk, Egan, and others--to be heard over the anti-Stratfordian static. One virtue of David Kathman's recent posts is that he has taken care to present simple facts, without relying on conjecture or unsupported assertion. I haven't seen all of the recent posts, so pardon me if I repeat what's been said by someone else. While Shakespeare's feminine endings in blank verse steadily increases over the years, feminine endings in his nondramatic verse steadily *decrease* from *Ven* (1593, 15.7%) to *Luc* (1594, 10.7%) to *PhT* (1601, 9.0%) to *Son* (1599-1608 [by the latest evidence], 7.7%) to *LC* (1608 [see MacD. Jackson], 8.8%). At 11.6%, FE is rather too *high*, than too low, for a Shakespeare poem written in 1612. For more info, see *Elegy by W.S.*, pp. 86-9. I, not Kathman, am to blame for the odd wording with respect to *Tmp* and the point about regular trochaic verse vs. iambic verse with feminine endings (see n.7, p.246). But something tells me that we won't get very far with a discussion of how many feminine endings would appear in a rhymed poem of 578 lines written by Shakespeare in February 1612. In the light of other evidence, it appears now that we'd have a poem with 67 feminine endings (11.6%)--or, if we count the unelided participles at lines 396/8, 69 feminine endings (11.9%). I have always found Gabriel Egan's SHAKSPER posts to be thoughtful, informative, and attentive to the facts--but on this issue, he is simply mistaken. I'm doubtful that even one Jacobean poet can be produced whose rhymed and unrhymed verse have a comparable frequency of feminine endings--but it is demonstrably not so with Shakespeare or with most of his contemporaries who wrote both rhymed and unrhymed verse. For those who are still looking for evidence that Shakespeare didn't write FE, let them look elsewhere than to feminine endings. For example, FE has a very high incidence of *as* and *which* relative to most Shakespearean texts. I will gladly assist any fellow scholar who hopes at this late juncture to build a case against Shakespeare's authorship of the elegy. Foster (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 12:29:14 -0600 (CST) Subject: Funeral Elegy Gabriel Egan suggests that we have exhausted the FE discussion. I hope he doesn't convince us to drop it. Despite the tedium of the unsubstantiated damnings of the Elegy, there has been much of interest here and I feel we may be closer to finding the best of all uses of the list with this conversation. Rather than feeling that we have exhausted the discussion, I am inclined to think that we have gotten the knee-jerk stuff out of the way and are now ready for a serious and worthy scholarly examination of FE. It's much too early for me to have an opinion. But...here is something I noticed. It hardly qualifies as serious stuff but it jumped out at me. Richard Kennedy pointed out a parallel between W.S.'s "sour-bitter" line and the same term in a line by Ford. Both W.S. and Ford give "sour" two syllables. Shakespeare uses the word "sour" 36 times; he also uses "sour'd", "sour-ey'd", and "sour-fac'd" once each. In each case but one he gives "sour" one syllable. In COE, 5.1.45, he gives it two. I don't know what this implies but it does jump out. I'm now looking at a few other words which might show something similar. Please continue. It is important work. Roger Gross U. of Arkansas (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 13:26:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Funeral Elegy >Dave Kathman writes: > >Actually, Don Foster did cite Warner South in his list of all works by people >with the initials W.S. between 1570 and 1630. The first edition of Butler's >*The Feminine Monarchie* (STC 4192) was in 1609, so it was closer to FE than >you thought. South also had a Latin poem in Thomas Vicars' *Cheiragogia*, the >third edition of which was in 1628. According to the list, Warner South (or >"Warnerus South, Jurista Novi Collegii Socius") was born in 1586 and was Canon >of Wells. Since both of his known works are in Latin, there's not much basis >for comparison with the Elegy. I stand corrected. I was reacting quickly, and checked only Don Foster's Index -- in which South is not mentioned. But as Dave notes, Don does list him on page 273. Sorry about dragging up an already dragged up W.S. Mea culpa. >Dave Kathman summarizes his argument thus: > Shakespeare's use of enjambment increased over time in >both his plays and in his non-dramatic poetry, involving similar percentages, >and there is no reason not to compare FE with the late plays. With feminine >endings, though, the plays and the non-dramatic verse differ, as I've been >arguing: feminine endings increased steadily in Shakespeare's plays, as they >did in Elizabethan plays in general, but they held steady or arguably decreased >in his nondramatic verse, much as they did in Elizabethan rhymed verse in >general. Given a choice between comparing the feminine endings in FE with the >blank verse of the late plays or with the nondramatic poems, I've been arguing >that the nondramatic poems are a better choice, even though neither choice is >ideal. The nondramatic poems differ from FE in terms of date, but I've argued >that that doesn't appear to be a very significant factor in rhymed verse; the >late plays differ from FE in being almost entirely blank verse, which I've >argued is a very significant factor since blank verse tends to have more >feminine endings than rhymed verse. All this seems rational and well-reasoned, but I still feel a certain amount of circularity in the statement. Dave wants to use the standard that works best for his argument, and, by gum! it does work best for his argument! Dave has also sided with the scholars who want to date the sonnets in the seventeenth century, shortly before they were printed and published in 1609. For the sake of debate (the sonnets don't FEEL late to me because they seem related to plays like LLL and R&J), let's grant Dave a late dating of the sonnets -- circa 1609. The sonnets are then the closest non-dramatic poetry to FE (1612). Only three or four years separates them, and they are both basically written in quatrains. As you recall, Shakespeare likes the three quatrain and a couplet structure for the sonnet, and FE is basically in quatrains. And some scholars want to llink FE to the first 126 sonnets. So let's compare FE to the sonnets. Let's use the sonnets as a rational standard, and see how close they are in terms of style -- feminine endings, enjambement, elisions, and so on. I have no idea what the statistics are, but wouldn't this comparison make sense? Yours, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Sunday, 10 Mar 1996 21:35:41 -0800 Subject: Doctor Dodypoll "The Wisdom of Doctor Dodipoll" was entered Oct 7, 1600, and was published as: "The Wisdome of Doctor Dodypoll. As it has bene sundrie times Acted by the Children of Powles. London. Printed by Thomas Creede, for Richard Olive, dwelling in Long Lane. 1600." At the moment I know little else but the short notice given by E.K. Chambers, "The Elizabethan Stage" Vol IV, p. 54. "Fleay, ii.155, assigned the play to Peele, chiefly on the ground that a snatch of song is from his "Hunting of Cupid". But Peele died in 1596, and Koeppel points out that the phrase (Bullen, p. 129), "Then reason's fled to animals, I see", presupposes the existence of Julius Caesar (1599), III.ii.109: "O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts/ And men have lost their reason." But the anonymous writer of Dr. Dodypoll has much more in common expression with Shakespeare. A cursory investigation yields these comparisons: DD: Well, I am glad we are haunted so with Fairies. Cymbeline: What fairies haunt this ground? ditto: With female fairies will his tomb be haunted. DD: For his behavior, for his sweet discourse. ] T.G. of Ver: ...hear sweet discourse. L.L.Lost: So sweet and voluble in his discourse. Rich III: Vows of love and ample interchange of sweet discourse. Rom. and Juliet: All these woes shall serve for sweet discourse. DD: Why being (of late) with such importunate suit. Othello: By their own importunate suit. DD: See what a lively piercing eye is here. Coriolanus: Able to pierce a corslet with his eye. Lear: How far your eyes may pierce I cannot tell. 3 Hen IV: These eyes...have been as piercing as the mid-day sun. DD: Ass that I was, dull, senseless, gross brained fool. Hen V: In gross brain little wots what watch the king keeps... DD: Of their close dealings, winkings, becks and touches... 2 Hen VI: This is close dealing. DD: But not a rag of money. Com. of Er: But surely, master, not a rag of money. DD: With nothing true, but what our labouring souls... Hamlet: We shall jointly labour with your soul... Not wishing to weary the reader, the rest I have gleaned will be appended to the end of this post. Most of all, I find the poetry in Doctor Dodypoll to be of the highest order, quite happily suggesting Shakespeare, or so it sounds to me. Here are a couple of examples. In the first, a painter is by way of the Almighty praising his employment in the art "...why the world With all her beauty was by painting made. Look on the heavens colour'd with golden stars, The firmamental ground of it, all blue. Look on the air, where with a hundred changes The watry Rain-bow doth embrace the earth. ...Look on that little world, the twofold man, Whose fairer parcel is the weaker still. And see what azure veins in stream-like form Divide the Rosie beauty of his skin." And again the painter, regretting that he cannot paint his fair love as she comes to his eye. "...Then might'st thou justly wonder at mine art, And devout people would from far repair. Like Pilgrims, with their duteous sacrifice, Adorning thee as Regent of their loves; Here, in the center of this Mary-gold, Like a bright Diamond I enchast thine eye. Here, underneath this little Rosie bush Thy crimson cheeks peer forth more fair than it. Here, Cupid (hanging down his wings) doth sit, Comparing Cherries to thy Ruby lips." This much in the first scene only, and much more throughout the play. But also the roughness of Shakespeare, that crude, scoffing throw away attitude, the smooth vulgarity of the man, challenging poetry even in the latrine: "Indeed M. Doctor your commodities are rare, A guard of Urinals in the morning; A plaguie fellow at midnight; A fustie Pothecary, ever at hand with his fustian drugges, attending your pispot worship." The comedy is sprinkled throughout with bright and original phrases, and I give but a few: "Curious pencil of your tongue; triumphing from corner to corner; color-fading cheeks; nuptial fire; nuptial appetite; absolute man; stealth of love; feeds on melancholie; jealous stomach; fresh stars; swords in thy tongue; perilous wit; amourous lunacy..." and much more of course. Then there is the story, very Shakespearean, and the play needs a couple of readings to get the drift, very like Shakespeare in that. I'll not attempt to tell it faithfully in an outline. It's five acts, 58 pages. It's about a couple of marriages, a Duke with an ugly daughter (but fine), disguises, a love potion, cross-dressed misunderstandings, an Earl posing as a poor painter who loves below his station, an embassy from abroad, confusions, our hero gone mad, and there are dumb puns, music and song, and the ridiculous Dr. Dodypoll who spends his mastery of English in this manner: Doct: I by garr: heere be de powdra, you give de halfe at once. Flor: But are you sure it will work the effect? Doct: Me be sure? By garr she no sooner drinke but shee hang your neck about; she stroake your beard; she nippe your cheeke, she busse your lippe, by garr. I suppose you might call Doctor Dodypoll low comedy, but its blessed with some high poetry and merry folk all falling over themselves for the sake of love and a happy ending. I'd love to see it played, and that might be the first time in 400 years, so far as I know. And no doubt I know very little, and I'd appreciate if anyone could tell me more of the play. Not by the way at all, for those who might be interested, it is STC 6991, and the U. Mich microfilm is Reel 289. Perhaps it hasn't been printed since 1600, but I'd be pleased to learn differently. Here are the remaining comparisons with Shakespeare: DD: You offer an intollerable wrong. T. Andron: Despiteful and intolerable wrongs! DD: Aye me, what Demon was it gulled me thus. Hen V: The same demon that hath gull'd thee thus. DD: You that are bodies made of light air... Othello: Trifles light as air... DD: No sleep will seize on my suspicious eyes. 1 Hen IV: Suspicion all our lives shall be stuck full of eyes. DD: O brave free hearted slave... T. of Athens: I am bound to your free heart. Macbeth: Let us speak our free hearts each to other. DD: His life and wits, should ransom worlds for me. Rich II: The world's ransom, blessed Mary's son. 2 Hen VI: The world shall not be ransom for thy life. W. Tale: They looked as they had heard of a world ransomed. DD: Yet since my mind beats on it mightily... Tempest: For still 'tis beating in my mind... ditto: A turn or two I'll walk, to still my beating mind. ditto: Do not infest your mind with beating on the strangeness of this business. DD: Ere I'll offend your grace or breed suspicion... 2 Hen VI: Because in York this breeds suspicion... Hen VIII: I am sorry my integrity should breed...so deep suspicion. My deep suspicion is, of course, that Shakespeare wrote the play and escaped to the world without even his initials to mark it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 16:24:04 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0194 Re: Bardolatry Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0194. Monday, 11 March 1996. (1) From: Nora Kreimer Date: Sunday, 10 Mar 1996 12:12:54 ARG Subj: Re: SHK 7.0192 Q: Bardolatry (2) From: Tom Clayton Date: Monday, 11 Mar 96 09:27:09 CST Subj: "Bardolatry" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nora Kreimer Date: Sunday, 10 Mar 1996 12:12:54 ARG Subject: Re: SHK 7.0192 Q: Bardolatry THE COMPLETE COMPACT EDITION OF THE OED, 1991. BARDOLATRY: Worship of the "Bard of Avon" (occas. used of other writers) bardolater, a worshipper of the Bard, a Shakespearolater bardolatrous, tending to or characterized by bardolatry 1901 G B Shaw, PLAYS FOR PURIITANS So much for Bardolatry? 1903 MAN AND SUPERMAN Foolish Bardolaters make a virtue of this after their fashion 1903 in Sat. Rev, 11 Feb The word "pity" does not reach even the third row of the stalls, much less the bardolatrous pit. 1911 Times Lit. Supp, 9 Nov Playing for the sympathy of the "Bardolaters" 1914 G B Shaw DARK LADY PROF. The familiar plea of Bardolatrous ignoramus that Shakespeare's coarseness was part of of the manners of his age. (continues) It seems it was good old George. Any other source of info? Nora Kreimer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Monday, 11 Mar 96 09:27:09 CST Subject: "Bardolatry" "Bardolatry." In OED2 the first recorded use is George Bernard Shaw's in 1901 in the preface to *Plays for Puritans*: "So much for bardolatry!" So much indeed. Cheers, Tom ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 16:37:58 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0195 Re: About This List Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0195. Monday, 11 March 1996. (1) From: Susan Mather Date: Sunday, 10 Mar 1996 13:07:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0191 Re: The List (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 10 Mar 1996 09:57:55 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0178 Re: About This List (3) From: Richard W Bovard Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 09:59:52 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0165 Re: About This List (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Sunday, 10 Mar 1996 13:07:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0191 Re: The List Florence Amit--that was a very good point! I hadn't thought about Shakespeare's audience--hadn't taken that into consideration. Actually though, I have been telling my composition class about this "high level" Shakespeare discussion and truly, I have heard some real whoppers during those times. One of the more recent interpretations I have heard on Hamlet was that while his father slept, the poison that flowed into his ear was "vile semen"; his ear represented the anus. That is strange. My class was appalled needless to say. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 10 Mar 1996 09:57:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0178 Re: About This List Michael Saenger; Since so many of us are happy with this list the way it is, I suggest you start your own list along the lines you describe. If a group is fairly small it is very easy to maintain a list. One simply uses the same heading for each post, and under "cc" either types in or copies in the list of subscribers, thus each message goes to the entire list. For a larger list, someone who has done it (such as Hardy Cook) would surely be willing to offer pointers to get you started. Your idea for a list sounds like an interesting one, and, as you say, it would be very interesting to hear from those researchers who are presently not posting anywhere. I would be glad to subscribe to such a list, and to submit to the rules as you describe them (evidence in each post of research? titles of books, etc.?) since on SHAKSPER we have a place to post more freely. I have been researching the biographies and works of the University wits, and at the moment am on a fairly small list of others who are doing the same thing. If there is anyone out there interested in this area, please post to me directly. Stephanie Hughes (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard W Bovard Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 09:59:52 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0165 Re: About This List I have just returned to the office after a week away. While it momentarily seems something of a chore to go through so many messages from SHAKESPER, it quickly becomes a pleasure. I see what people are interested in and talking about these days. If I wish to use something for a class, I store the information for a later date. If I wish to respond, I can communicate by e-mail or the list. If I wish to forget, I push a key. Is this not a blending of conversation and the early stages of research? For someone who has no colleagues who specialize in the Renaissance, this conversation is a delight. For someone who writes memos and reports, whose weeks are filled with administrative meetings, these "stages" are stimulating incentives for different writing and more fulfilling weeks. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 16:40:28 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0196 Genre Query Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0196. Monday, 11 March 1996. From: Peter Herman Date: Sunday, 10 Mar 1996 12:41:52 -0500 Subject: Genre Query I'm cross-posting this on a couple of lists, so please forgive the repetition. I'm looking for criticism on the importance of genre theory (e.g., comedy, tragedy, etc.) in the English Renaissance. All help is appreciated and can be posted either to the list or to me personally. Thanks in advance everyone. Peter C. Herman Dept. of English Georgia State U ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 16:44:05 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0197 Re: Othello's Religion and Origins Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0197. Monday, 11 March 1996. From: Sydney Kasten Date: Sunday, 10 Mar 1996 20:37:14 +0200 (IST) Subject: Othello's Religion and Origins The text gives us no reason to challenge Othello's claim to "honour", so for him to be anything other than the Christian he professes to be would be out of character. As has been pointed out, his marriage to be sanctioned must have been Christian. A rephrasing of the question might be in order: "Was he born Christian, was he a convert or perhaps a "Converso?" The latter are the children of those who dealt with the Spanish Inquisition by adopting the full practice of Roman Catholicism, while maintaining in secret certain basic practices of Judaism. To this day the Converso sees himself as a complete Roman Catholic, but refrains from marriage out of the group and is buried in converso cemeteries. To this extent Othello could not have been a "good" converso and at the same time marry Desdemona. Nevertheless, the story of his social dislocations from boyhood on leaves room for the thesis that he was born Armenian, Eastern Orthodox, pagan, Muslim, Jew or whatever, and that the tenets of the confession into which he was born were either never learned or forgotten with time and disuse. This would allow him to accept without reservation the faith of his adoptive city. All that would remain of his origin would be a *sign* left on his body on his eighth day or his thirteenth year if his birth were Jewish or Moslem. Florence Amit's analysis of Othello's name is compelling to one who is a Member Of the Tribe. She doesn't tell us that the constellation she proposes is to be found in yesterday's newspaper. "Ayatollah", the title assumed by the Iranian Muslim clergy is composed of *ayat*, the Arabic relative of the Hebrew *oth*, and the name of the Diety. Oth is the correct transliteration of the hebrew word for sign, being composed of the letters aleph and thav, the first and last letters - or, if you will, the alpha and omega - of the hebrew alphabet. Make something of that! I had taken for granted that the -ello in Othello's name was a standard Latin diminutive, as in Marcello. I had never thought of cutting it off to leave the *Oth*. Incidentally the diminutive lives on in the Yiddish language, presumably brought northward by them as various forces caused them to move from the borders of the Roman Empire into regions where they adopted the German lingua franca. While Yiddish and German are strongly similar, this suffix is one of the points of divergence between the two languages. e.g. Young girl = German Maedchen = Yiddish maidele. Ian Doescher tells us of the origin of the play, an Italian play called Heccatommithi. He doesn't let us know if the protagonist is called Othello, leaving us in uncertainty as to the provenance of the name. On the other hand, as I look at the name of the Italian play, I see a word that is neither Italian, Greek nor Latin. What does spring out at me from the page is a group of syllables which in Hebrew seem to say "That which is signed is in my possession". Is Ian in a position to tell us more about Heccatommithi? They who believe Shakespeare's lack of Latin and general education disqualify him from participation in the KJV project and even from being the author of the opus attributed to him must be rolling on the floor to see all this Hebrew being thrown around. I do not think it absurd that one who had such a mastery of such a complex language as English would have any trouble with any language he had reason to learn. I would presume that then as now Hebrew would be an unavoidable part of a clerical education, that instruction would be freely available for any motivated student. Why he would want to inject a Hebrew element, if in fact he did, might be the the basis of another discussion. Syd Kasten Jerusalem ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 10:02:56 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0198 Re: World Shakespeare Conference Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0198. Wednesday, 13 March 1996. (1) From: Corrie Zoll Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 16:43:44 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0189 World Shakespeare Conference (2) From: Kay Pilzer Date: Tuesday, 12 Mar 1996 10:38:12 -0600 (CST) Subj: ISA/SAA Roommates Wanted (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Corrie Zoll Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 16:43:44 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0189 World Shakespeare Conference To anyone attending the World Shakespeare Conference in Los Angeles in April: I have written a play entitled A Night in Queen's Clothing which is based on the Sonnets as well as the circumstances surounding the murder of Christopher Marlowe. The play opens April 11 at the Globe Theater in West Hollywood and will be presented by a theater company called Actors' Asylum. I would be interested in hearing feedback from anyone who will be in Los Angeles and who sees /would like to see the production. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kay Pilzer Date: Tuesday, 12 Mar 1996 10:38:12 -0600 (CST) Subject: ISA/SAA Roommates Wanted I've booked a $60/night (non-smoking) room at the Hyatt for the week of the ISA/SAA LA conference (April 7-14). I'm hoping there are 3 other (female) scholars as impoverished as I who will be willing to share it (and its cost) with me. Please contact me directly: Kay Pilzer (PILZERKL@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 10:17:04 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0199 Re: About This List Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0199. Wednesday, 13 March 1996. (1) From: Jean Peterson Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 17:57:03 +0200 Subj: This list (2) From: Michael Saenger Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 21:38:27 -0500 (EST) Subj: About This List (3) From: Kay Campbell Pilzer Date: Tuesday, 12 Mar 1996 10:10:56 -0600 (CST) Subj: About this list (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 17:57:03 +0200 Subject: This list Professor Saenger seems to be discontented with the level and quality of discourse on this list, envisioning instead one that will engage the best and brightest in more elevated and serious scholarly discussion. In support, he claims that a number of "good" scholars have un-subscribed from SHAKSPER because the quality of discussion doesn't meet their standards. There is a solution so obvious that I am surprised no one has yet suggested it: why doesn't Prof. Saenger, assisted, perhaps, by some of those discontented scholars, START this new and elevated, more serious Shakespeare electronic conference? Those who wish to could subscribe to it, while the rest may just be content to stay with SHAKSPER-as-it-is. I don't mean this to be argumentative, but I think Hardy Cook's "invention," SHAKSPER, is enough of an accomplishment and labor of love for ONE man. If people feel that strongly about the list not meeting their scholarly needs and wishes, they might just take the initative and do something about it themselves. I'm sure Hardy would be happy to tell you what you need to know about getting such a project off the ground. Jean Peterson Bucknell University [Editor's Note: SHAKSPER was the brain child of Ken Steele, who founded it in July 1990 with a dozen or so members, of which I was one. Many of this original core of subscribers are still members of the conference. Ken was insprired by the SAA meeting in Philadephia of that same year and longed for a means by which the discussions, both formal and informal, could continue throughout the year. I took over as SHAKSPER editor in June of 1992. Did I get it right, Ken? --HMC] (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 21:38:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: About This List As for the point about Shakespeare's audiences. Yes, any one could attend a play. But not just any one could PERFORM in a play. Hence my idea of a list where any one can subscribe, but where they only received posts that were educational. The internet should be a place where people of all backgrounds can be enlightened. And just how are they enlightened by listening to undergraduates attempting to get ideas for a paper? If we do not control what posts get through we do not have the openness of Shakespeare's theater; we have the openness of the streets outside of it. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kay Campbell Pilzer Date: Tuesday, 12 Mar 1996 10:10:56 -0600 (CST) Subject: About this list Isn't it an annual Shaksperian tradition to have this discussion? One point not yet made: tracking, in the sense of directing students into groups defined by abilities, does not statistically increase the achievement of the "high" students, and statistically decreases the achievement of the "low" students. (Look in any of your local elementary schools). We pedestrians will never learn smartspeak unless you let us play, too. Besides, aren't you supposed to be teachers? Another point: leveling the lists will not guarentee the participation of quotable folks. The quotables I know who do not participate abstain because they are too busy churning out the quotes, not because they don't want their words beside the words of a kid from the sticks. As, usually, a lurker on this list, I have enjoyed reading challenging remarks by both seasoned profs and precocious grad students--and I have enjoyed watching the level of discourse among some of the regular and more audacious contributors gradually assume a higher level as these people learn the language of scholarship. And some of our better discussions have come as the result of answers to fairly naive questions from obvious non-specialists. And those stupid, careless remarks? Well, they give me the satisfaction of thinking I know something someone else doesn't. Keep this democracy, with its messy, chaotic mish-mash of peasants, bourgeoise, and nobles. Save the tracking for the pages of juried publications. Let this remain the eclectic coffee room of the Shakespearean's experience, not become another lecture hall. Kay Campbell Pilzer Vanderbilt University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 10:20:45 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0200 Re: Bardolatry Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0200. Wednesday, 13 March 1996. (1) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 10:29:29 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Bardolatry (2) From: Joanne Woolway Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 23:14:08 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: Bardolatry (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 10:29:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Bardolatry I have heard that it was G. B. Shaw, who was NOT a bardolater. The OED, anyway, credits him with the 1st--and multiple uses of the word--starting in 1901. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Woolway Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 23:14:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: Bardolatry Thanks for the attribution of "bardolatry" to G. B. Shaw. I hadn't realized it was so early. JW ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 10:31:18 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0201 Re: Saving Theatre; Genre; Othello; Acting Co; *Tmp.* Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0201. Wednesday, 13 March 1996. (1) From: Brooke Brod Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 19:43:06 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0169 Shrew in Performance (2) From: Michael Saenger Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 21:40:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0196 Genre Query (3) From: Bruce Golden Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 19:28:31 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0197 Re: Othello's Religion and Origins (4) From: Kay Campbell Pilzer Date: Tuesday, 12 Mar 1996 10:32:02 -0600 (CST) Subj: Acting Co. (*HV) info (5) From: Kay Campbell Pilzer Date: Tuesday, 12 Mar 1996 10:25:43 -0600 (CST) Subj: Tempest productions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brooke Brod Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 19:43:06 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0169 Shrew in Performance How does one encourage the growth of new theatre? I don't know if I have any coherent program to "Save the American Theatre", but I will mention a few things. 1) I believe it was the March 3rd, Sun. edition of the NY Times that had an interesting article about three theatres that survive without government funding, NADA, Surf Reality and Alice's Fourth Floor. 2) Theatre has been on its "deathbed" for a long time in the U.S.(even before the NEA ever existed), and still manages to hang on, somehow. I think that what theatre professionals and enthusiasts need to do are to think of new ways to make theatre "necessary" to an audience. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 21:40:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0196 Genre Query Regarding Peter Herman's query, Rosalie Colie's _The Resources of Kind_ is still, I believe, unsurpassed on the issue of genre, at least in general terms. Michael Saenger (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Golden Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 19:28:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0197 Re: Othello's Religion and Origins This thread on etymology of Shakespeare's names hasn't yet mentioned John Ruskin's note in _Minerva Pulveris_, which I found in Northrop Frye's _Anatomy Of Criticism_ (p. 9). Of Shakespeare's names I will speak at more length; they are curiously--often barbarously mixed out of various traditions and languages. Three of the clearest in meaning have been already noticed. Desdemona--_miserable fortune_is also plain enough. Othello is, I believe, "the careful";... -Bruce Golden (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kay Campbell Pilzer Date: Tuesday, 12 Mar 1996 10:32:02 -0600 (CST) Subject: Acting Co. (*HV) info The Acting Company, currently touring the "*HV*: St. Crispin's Day at the Boar's Head," can be contacted at: (212) 564-3510. Times Square St., P. O. Box 898, New York, NY 10108. [This is for the several people who contacted me directly or the list about information about the schedule of this tour--which I was unable to get, but I did find this address]. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kay Campbell Pilzer Date: Tuesday, 12 Mar 1996 10:25:43 -0600 (CST) Subject: Tempest productions An interesting production of *Tem* was toured last year by the National Players: a "*Tempest*: The Opera" approach. They set the play to music and presented it as an opera in a slightly abridged form. (These people tour to community colleges and high schools.) The most striking moment of this production, for me, came when Caliban explains the noises to Stephano. On the other side of the stage from him, Miranda and Ferdinand are involved in their own world, but when Caliban does his "do not be afeard" speech, it becomes a duet by Miranda and Caliban (who each perform as though unconscious of the other). It was a magical touch linking these two children of the island. I don't know if there is a tape of this production, but here is how to reach the National Players: P. O. box 550, Olney, MD 20830. (301)924-5908; fax: (301)924-2654. Managing director is Barbara Pinolini. This information is primarily for Rod Osiowy, whose address I failed to note, but I thought others might be interested in this approach. Kay Campbell Pilzer Vanderbilt University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 10:41:31 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0202 Re: Funeral Elegy (and the Sonnets) Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0202. Wednesday, 13 March 1996. (1) From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 22:44:56 +0 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0193 Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 21:35:18 -0800 Subj: Funeral Elegy (3) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 22:31:52 -0800 Subj: Funeral Elegy (4) From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996 00:08:01 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 22:44:56 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0193 Re: Funeral Elegy Bill Godshalk writes: >Dave has also sided with the scholars who want to date the sonnets in the >seventeenth century, shortly before they were printed and published in 1609. >For the sake of debate (the sonnets don't FEEL late to me because they seem >related to plays like LLL and R&J), let's grant Dave a late dating of the >sonnets -- circa 1609. Well, this isn't quite accurate. I don't think there's anybody out there who believes that the Sonnets were all written in 1608 or 1609. The position I incline toward is that the Sonnets were written over a period of years, largely around the turn of the century and a few years after, and that Shakespeare may have written or revised some of them in preparation for the 1609 Quarto. The Sonnets as a whole have more vocabulary in common with *H5* and *Hamlet* than with any of the early plays, despite the very different subject matter. And the all the "Shakespeare-roles" identified by SHAXICON up to Adam in *As You Like It* influence the vocabulary of the Sonnets. >The sonnets are then the closest non-dramatic poetry to FE (1612). Only three >or four years separates them, and they are both basically written in quatrains. > As you recall, Shakespeare likes the three quatrain and a couplet structure >for the sonnet, and FE is basically in quatrains. And some scholars want to >llink FE to the first 126 sonnets. > >So let's compare FE to the sonnets. Let's use the sonnets as a rational >standard, and see how close they are in terms of style -- feminine endings, >enjambement, elisions, and so on. I have no idea what the statistics are, but >wouldn't this comparison make sense? As I've just said, I wouldn't put the Sonnets as close to FE as you say -- more like ten years than three or four. I don't have all the numbers here, but in feminine endings, as has been noted, the Sonnets overall are 7.7%, FE is 11.6%. In run-on lines (enjambment), the Sonnets are about 17% (I don't have the exact number), FE is 46% --- but Shakespeare increased his enjambment markedly in the late plays (from 19% in *Ado* to 31% in *Lear* to 46% in *Tempest*). Both the Sonnets and FE have the same number of relative clauses, roughly 13 per 1000 words. FE has more hyphenated compound words than the Sonnets (101 per 20,000 words vs. 75), but both are well within Shakespeare's normal limits. In terms of vocabulary, I believe that the Sonnets have more vocabulary in common with FE, percentagewise, than any other text in Don Foster's considerable text archive. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu PS: (Actually, upon checking I find that *A Lover's Complaint* has slightly more vocabulary overlap with the Sonnets than does FE, but it's very close -- less than one word per 1000 difference.) And on glancing through Don Foster's list of English elegies, I see there was an "Elegy upon His Honoured Friend Mr. James Herrewyn", written by "J. Godschalck" (p.309). A relative, perhaps, Bill? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 21:35:18 -0800 Subject: Funeral Elegy Don Foster says that his 6-page comment on his Funeral Elegy talks was an "unpublished handout", and I was at fault for quoting from his remarks. But there IS no such thing as an "unpublished handout". The multiple reproduction and distribution of such material is fully copyright, published, and you'll find that to be so by asking it of the U.S. Copyright Office, Washington D.C. The laws on this will be sent free explaining all. Such handouts are fully copyrighted, and are free to those who would quote from such material. Contrarywise, it is perhaps not unlawful, but it is certainly a breach of professional etiquette to quote in a public forum from a private letter, and Don Foster has done this, snatching a few lines of mine meant for his eyes only, not for public display. So much for that. As to John Ford, I believe I respectfully asked if Shaxicon had been checked against that poet. I ask again--has it, and what are the results? Might Ford have written the Funeral Elegy? He was a close friend of the Peter family, and is the question out of the way? No evasion is needed, nor should I be scoured for asking. Has Shaxicon worked the problem? I am surprised to hear that "aesthetic impressions (as to FE) have scarcely any evidential value". I had always thought that it was so. How does a poet last for 400 years except for such impressions? There was never any machine that told us Shakespeare was good. A machine wouldn't know, and we have all this while been depending on our aesthetic impressions. Would Foster call this luck? Who's going to judge a poem but a human being? Is that opinion worth nothing? Does Don Foster really want to say this? And then onward to the ad hominen comments and belittling talk. I am a "co-religionist", joined in "nonsense" and "perverse disregard" for facts (no examples given), and shrill besides, having nothing to offer the group but "anti-Stratfordian static". Is this civil discourse, consideration of another's opinion, the sort of comment we'd expect from a scholar and a gentleman? I'll give Don Foster such respect and be happy to do so, if he'll be so kind as to do the same for me. Let us set aside our beliefs of the other's stupidity, and suspicions of private motives, and set our study to the subject at hand, fairly distributing our proofs, be they even subjective or aesthetic. And I thank Don Foster not to disparage me further in this regard. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 22:31:52 -0800 Subject: Funeral Elegy Bill Godshalk invites us to compare the Funeral Elegy with the Sonnets of Shakespeare. The word "of" is a weak word, very useful, butr not much for poetic expression, lacking tension, emphasis, and so forth. Worse yet, you wouldn't want to begin a line with the feeble thing. In the Funeral Elegy, 30 lines begin with "of". In the first 578 lines of the Sonnets, 2 lines begin with "of". I'm as sorry about it as Shakespeare probably was, but statistics are statistics. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996 00:08:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Funeral Elegy I share the disappointment of many readers with respect to the unembellished literary style of "A Funeral Elegy." We can all recognize that the elegy lacks the poetic exuberance of *Venus and Adonis,* or of the Sonnets, or of *The Tempest*. Many readers besides Mr. Kennedy have wished that Shakespeare had written a different kind of poem, or had written this one "better." But it will take more than bold assertion or idle speculation for the attribution to go away. Given the pervasive evidence of Shakespeare's hand in the poem, "A Funeral Elegy" will have a place hereafter in the canon--though probably never as a well-loved or greatly admired text. Forthcoming essays by Prof. Abrams and myself make clear how decisively the case for Shakespeare's authorship has changed since 1989; it will be better if I sign off on the SHAKSPER discussion of FE until both of those essays are in print. I am loath to quarrel with a fellow SHAKSPERian, and regret having complained of Mr. Kennedy's recent posts. At least we can agree that it was not Edward de Vere who wrote "A Funeral Elegy" in 1612. Nothing here worth a quarrel. Don Foster ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 10:44:01 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0203 EXTRACT/MAIL Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0203. Wednesday, 13 March 1996. From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996 06:49:16 -0800 Subject: Older Female Characters and Early Modern Acting Greetings all, Over dinner with an actor friend last night we found ourselves wondering about how likely it was that a boy actor played such characters as Juliet's Nurse, the Countess of Rossillion or Volumnia for the King's men. On one hand, no adolescent either of us know could play those roles to our admittedly "waning moments of the twentieth century" biased satisfaction. An older actor, though, might well prove a fabulous, say, Nurse-- the way I've seen some older actors effectively play Lady Bracknell in EARNEST. My actor friend thought he remembered seeing an Elizabethan woodcut of a man with a beard in a skirt, with a caption suggesting that older actors played female characters as well as the boys. I've never seen this woodcut. The three female characters we discussed are all sexually somewhat neutral, as opposed to Cleopatra who is emphatically sexy and therefore probably not played by a man (there's also that reference in the text to the boy actor playing Cleo) or Gertrude. On the other hand, there's this little problem of NO EVIDENCE. When I got home I took a quick tour through some books and found nothing with the very distantly possible exception of the 1658 title page of THE WITCH OF EDMONTON, which has Mother Sawyer pictured as an old woman (it's in R. A. Foakes ILLUSTRATIONS book). Furthermore, this idea might be doing a serious disservice to adolescents, particularly Elizabethan ones who didn't go to high school and were full time employees of the company. There's been a lot of work on cross-dressing lately, but as far as I've been able to tell most of it focuses on younger female characters (Rosalind, for example) as a locus for "erotic politics." The older female characters seem not to be much discussed, although it's entirely likely that I've missed something. So, I leave it to you. Does anybody out there have a firm idea about what kind of actor played these older female characters? Does anyone else know about this mystical woodcut? Best wishes, Brad Berens UC Berkeley========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 09:28:36 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0204 Re: Older Female Characters and Early Modern Acting Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0204. Thursday, 14 March 1996. (1) From: Wes Folkerth Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996 12:19:27 +0000 Subj: Re: older women roles (2) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996 13:00:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0203 Female Characters and Male Actors (3) From: Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996 14:12:24 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0203 (4) From: Scott Crozier Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 10:04:08 +1000 Subj: Re: older female roles (5) From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996 18:59:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: men playing women's parts (6) From: John Ramsay Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 00:53:56 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0203 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wes Folkerth Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996 12:19:27 +0000 Subject: Re: older women roles Hi all, I have also wondered about Bradley Berens's question about the possibility of older male actors playing some of the feminine roles. The thought of Volumnia or the Nurse with a beard makes me think more of the circus than the early modern theatre, but I also wonder about the voices. That is, do these two characters require the "small pipe" or "maiden's organ" that the younger female characters require? How about Paulina as well? If not, then perhaps it is not so farfetched to posit that older cast members could have played these roles. Wes Folkerth McGill University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996 13:00:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0203 Female Characters and Male Actors I too would like to see that woodcut, but I've long harboured the theory that men played certain roles like the Nurse or Volumnia, or even Cleopatra. After seeing an all-male production of _Molly Wood_ in Toronto last year, a play about Toronto's first gay "out"ing, I feel fully supported in my confidence that adult male actors are convincingly able to portray women. The men in that production were all ages from 20s to 40s, and all of them played doubled parts. Some members of the audience simply were not able to tell that some "women" on stage were really men. Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L9 (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996 14:12:24 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0203 >So, I leave it to you. Does anybody out there have a firm idea about what kind >of actor played these older female characters? Does anyone else know about >this mystical woodcut? With some of the plays, we know who played what parts. That gives us *some* indications. I made a quick scan of my First Folio fascimile edition, as I thought there might be a list of the players there, but found no indications for A&C. However, giving us a clue, there is always Cleopatra's own quip. Antony Shall be brought drunken forth, and I shall see Some squeaking Cleopatra boy my greatness I'the posture of a whore. Act V Scene ii (145?) (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 10:04:08 +1000 Subject: Re: older female roles I cannot see why older actors would not have played older female roles. Not only the nurse in R&J but also maybe the evil queen in Cym. Just because it was against the law, does it necessarily mean that women did not appear on stage. Aphra Behn proved that she could write and spy quite adequately! Regards, Scott Crozier (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996 18:59:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: men playing women's parts Re: Brad Berens' question about adult actors playing older women: Shakespeare often makes metadramatic jokes at otherwise serious moments (e.g. *Hamlet* 1.5.15: "Come on, you hear this fellow in the cellarage, / Conset to swear). One such instance is *Macbeth* 1.3.46: "You should be women, / And yet your beards forbid me to interpret that you are so." Perhaps the witch-actors were indeed *bearded*? (or at least, like Flute of *MND*, were boys old enough to have a beard coming in?) On a more speculative note: There is an cryptic jest in *Twelfth Night* as Malvolio contemplates a marriage to the Countess Olivia: "There is example for't: the Lady of the Strachey married the Yeoman of the Wardrobe." There was no such office as "Yeoman of the Wardrobe," nor had any branch of the Strachey family yet been elevated to the peerage. The jest has never been adequately explained. Charles J. Sisson some years ago discovered that the wardrobe-keeper at the Blackfriars Theater was one David Yeoman or Yeomans (b. 1573). Sisson found no records of Yeoman's earlier employment, nor any record of a literal Yeoman-Strachey wedding, nor any Strachey woman who would have fit the bill. But I think that the evident punning on Yeoman having married our Lady of the Strachey may be another metadramatic joke, a reference to a stage-wedding: William Strachey by 1604 (and perhaps earlier) was heavily involved in the theater as one of six partners in the Children of the Queen's Revels--and he was always hard up for cash, and perhaps eager to perform. One wishes to imagine a play--say, *The Puritaine*--in which Yeoman wooed and married William Strachey as an older widow. The only problem is that Strachey was already in his late twenties by the time that *Twelfth Night* was performed. But if adults sometimes played women's parts, perhaps Strachey's age would not have been seen as a huge obstacle. Or perhaps it was his age that occasioned the jest in *TNt.* Such speculations do not, of course, constitute evidence either way--but Brad has certainly raised an interesting question, one that might shed light on early casting. Don Foster (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Ramsay Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 00:53:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0203 Re: Male actors in female roles The late Robertson Davies did a thesis at Oxford in the 1930's entitled 'Shakespeare's Boy Actors'. It and others on the topic are probably still available. Davies went on to begin his own writing career with plays performed by all male casts when he was a teacher at Upper Canada College, a boys' school in Toronto. So it can be done. John Ramsay Welland, Ontario, Canada jramsay@freenet.npiec.on.ca ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 09:35:45 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0205 Re: Funeral Elegy (and the Sonnets) Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0205. Thursday, 14 March 1996. (1) From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996 19:42:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Funeral Elegy (and the Sonnets) (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996 14:37:24 -0800 Subj: Funeral Elegy (3) From: Michael Skovmand Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 09:39:47 MET Subj: Re: SHK 7.0202 Re: Funeral Elegy (and the Sonnets) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996 19:42:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Funeral Elegy (and the Sonnets) Just when I say that I'll try to avoid arguing with Richard Kennedy, he again bites his own foot. He writes: >The word "of" is a weak word, very useful, but not much for poetic >expression, lacking tension, emphasis, and so forth. Worse yet, >you >wouldn't want to begin a line with the feeble thing. In the >Funeral Elegy, 30 >lines begin with "Of". In the first 578 lines of >the Sonnets, 2 lines begin >with "Of". I'm as sorry about it as >Shakespeare probably was, but statistics >are statistics. The reason that FE has a high percentage of "Of" (1 per 20 lines) will be perfectly obvious to most SHAKSPERians: The verse is highly enjambed. Only a few English poets living in 1612--all London playwrights--sustain a rate of enjambment as high as that found in FE--and ALL of those poets have a high percentage of lines beginning with "Of." As Shakespeare's rate of enjambment rockets upward from 1606 to 1613, so does his frequency of lines beginning with "Of." If there were not about 30 lines beginning with "Of" in the Elegy, it would constitute evidence *against* Shakespeare's authorship. For example: of the first 250 lines of Henry VIII (from I.i.1 to I.ii.25, which everyone agrees are by Shakespeare), 11 begin with "Of" (1 per 23 lines); of the first 250 pentameter lines of TNK (from I.i.26 to II.i.42), 10 begin with "Of" (1 per 25 lines). And yet both of these are conversational texts, with discontinuous speeches--so that many more lines must begin a new sentence than in the continuous quatrains of a poem like FE. Adjusted for differences between dramatic and nondramatic texts, or between blank verse and continuous quatrains, we should expect to find about 1 line out of 30 beginning with "Of" in Sh's portion of H8 and TNK, 1 line out of 20 beginning with "Of" in a poem by Shakespeare written in 1612. Lines beginning with "Of" are somewhat *more* frequent than expected in the opening scenes of H8 and TNK, right on the money for FE. Once again, Mr. Kennedy has spoken without first checking his facts. This is, however, the last time that I will respond to his posts. It is good for Shakespeare studies, and for critical reception of the Funeral Elegy, when Mr. Kennedy performs the role of gadfly, but I have no wish to continue swinging at him. I wish Mr. Kennedy all deserved success in the months ahead as he seeks to gain an audience for his views. Don Foster (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996 14:37:24 -0800 Subject: Funeral Elegy The comparison of the Funeral Elegy with the Sonnets seems to be a good idea. To make the chore a bit easier, I've been toting up some items using the whole 578 lines of the Elegy and the first 578 lines of the Sonnets -- which goes 2 lines into sonnet 42. That seems as representative a chunk as any, and fair enough to the task, seeing as I have no computer program to sic on these selections. My counting may be off 2 or 3 either way, but the counting was done by hand and the tally differences are large enough that a small error might be excused. Lines ending with a colon: Elegy 10, Sonnets 55 Words with 4 or more syllables: Elegy 73, Sonnets 15 The use of ellipses: Elegy 8, Sonnets NONE Total of full-stopped sentences: Elegy 79, Sonnets 107 Lines carried over w/o punctuation: Elegy 289, Sonnets 77 Lines beginning with "of": Elegy 30, Sonnets 2 Lines with punctuation within: Elegy 212, Sonnets 108 Use of question marks: Elegy 6, Sonnets 19 Of course you might take 578 lines of the Sonnets from back to front, or select from the middle, but this seems a good sample, and the differences are quite easy to see, as well as it is obvious that Richard Abrams is wrong when he writes in the Shakespeare Newsletter: "Judged by his largely unconscious linguistic preferences, W.S.'s style seems virtually indistinguishable from Shakespeare's." (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Skovmand Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 09:39:47 MET Subject: Re: SHK 7.0202 Re: Funeral Elegy (and the Sonnets) I must take issue with the Kathman/Godshalk *radicality* of uncertainty as to the dating of the sonnets : sonnets 138 and 144 appeared in the miscellany *The Passionate Pilgrim* in 1599, with only a few insignificant variations in spelling! And these two, IMHO, are among his most sophisticated and *mature* sonnets, thematically and stylistically. Shakespeare, in other words, was fully developed as a sonneteer by 1599. Doesn't this make any dating game involving FE and the sonnets highly problematic? Michael Skovmand U. of Aarhus Denmark ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 09:39:13 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0206 Qs: Music/Political Power; World Shakespeare Conference Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0206. Thursday, 14 March 1996. (1) From: Cherrie Gottsleben Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996 13:03:16 -0600 (CST) Subj: RESEARCH (2) From: Joe Shea Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 02:56:23 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0198 Re: World Shakespeare Conference (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cherrie Gottsleben Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996 13:03:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: RESEARCH Hello all, I'm thinking of a graduate thesis that links the power of music with political power in the English Renaissance. Speech and rhetoric -- language and its emotional tones might somehow be the bridge. If anyone can supply some bibliographic information it would be welcome. Thanks! (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Shea Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 02:56:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0198 Re: World Shakespeare Conference Can someone email me info about the World Shakespeare Conference in in LA on April 7-14? Is there a prtess facility there? Best, Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 09:43:13 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0207 Re: About This List Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0207. Thursday, 14 March 1996. (1) From: Michael Saenger Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996 18:31:00 -0500 (EST) Subj: About This List (2) From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 96 22:38:19 UT Subj: RE: SHK 7.0199 Re: About This List (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996 18:31:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: About This List Ever since I first mentioned the idea of an edited list I have gotten requests, public and private, simply to start one. I do not want to undermine SHAKSPER, which I value very highly, nor Hardy, who is doing a fantastic job. But it is obvious that I am not the only one who wants a higher level of dialogue, even among those still on the list. So, let's do it. If you want to join this list, please send me a private message, along with any ideas or advice you have on how you think this should be done. In particular, I need input from those with internet expertise on how to arrange this. I have no particular passion to run this list, so I am also entirely open to people who would like to do so. Basically, these are the rules: Any one can subscribe Submissions will be screened The following will be welcome: Naive questions Informed discussion Diverse points of view The following will be screened out: Cyberspace farts from people who are "shooting from the hip": e.g. "I think Hamlet says something about that in the middle of the play." Excessive discussion on any one topic Questions that are obviously from undergrads fishing for ideas (also called plagiarism) Excessive contributions from any one member of the list Questions that should simply be asked to a librarian Yours, Michael Saenger (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Wednesday, 13 Mar 96 22:38:19 UT Subject: RE: SHK 7.0199 Re: About This List This conference is superbly run and all I need do if the thread gets dull is delete. But also, I would like to be able to evesdrop on the discussions of the top scholars. So, how about a set of members entitled to post read-only contributions. Would this give us the best of both worlds? The exclusivity doesn't bother me. If it did, I would apply to join them, submitting a contribution designed to earn their vote to admit me. It is a kind of gloss on academic refereeing. One could still E-Mail them privately. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 10:23:09 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0208 Re: Older Female Characters and Early Modern Acting Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0208. Friday, 15 March 1996. (1) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 11:51:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: 7.0204 Re: Older Female Characters and Early Modern Acting (2) From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 13:25:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: [Older Female Roles] (3) From: Katherine Rowe Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 15:22:40 -0500 Subj: Re: Older Female Characters and Early Modern Acting (4) From: David Carnegie Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 10:39:10 +1200 Subj: Re: Older Female Characters and Early Modern Acting (5) From: Martin Green Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 21:53:53 GMT Subj: Re: Older Female Characters and Early Modern Acting (6) From: David M Richman Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 09:35:51 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Older Female Characters and Early Modern Acting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 11:51:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: 7.0204 Re: Older Female Characters and Early Modern Acting It might be interesting to discover, if possible, how old Dick Robinson was in 1616. He is the actor requested by name in _The Devil is an Ass_ to play the part of the Spanish Lady. In the play, Dick is not available, and the part goes to Wittipol instead. But the character Wittipol was played by Dick Robinson. So does anyone know how old Dick was? Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L9 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 13:25:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Older Female Roles] Bradley Berens' query about who played older female roles is interesting. Quentin Crisp's protrayal of Queen Elizabeth in the film of Orlando was completely convincing to me (and the performance was additionally complicated by the female actor who played -- let's see, at that point (1584, when the Thames froze over) Orlando was still male. I suppose there is a discussion that could be started about the androgyny of, if not old age itself, then of old people as depicted (sometimes) by playwrights. Odd that for the last 20-odd years most of the discussion I've heard about androgyny has been about the _young_ (and the young-to-middle-aged -- David Bowie, et al). Jim Schaefer (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Katherine Rowe Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 15:22:40 -0500 Subject: Re: Older Female Characters and Early Modern Acting The "mysterious woodcut" sounds very like the title pages of the 1620 pamphlet exchange about cross dressing, taken out of context. See *Hic mulier: or, The man-woman and Haec-vir: or, The womanish-man*. (This was reprinted from the 1620 eds. published b [Editor's note: part of message appears to have been lost. HMC] Cheers, Katherine Rowe Yale University (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Carnegie Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 10:39:10 +1200 Subject: Re: Older Female Characters and Early Modern Acting Two recent books tend to reaffirm our understanding that there was a sharp division in the acting profession (so-called 'boys' playing women's roles, and 'men' playing men): T J King, *Casting Shakespeare's Plays: London Actor's and their Roles, 1590-1642* (Cambridge 1992), and David Bradley, *From Text to Performance in the Elizabethan Theatre: Prepaing the Play for the Stage* (Cambridge, 1992). King says categorically that 'the boy actors with these companies do *not* play adult male roles, nor do adult actors play female roles' (p. 6); but his dogmatism is undercut by the inclusion of the example of the young Dick Jubie playing both a woman and a man in *Alcazar*. Bradley's book is much the more useful, because less mechanistic (and freer of error), but he also finds any alteration from the standard pattern very rare. The fact that men did not normally play women is not of course an argument that they were not capable of it: for a slightly later seventeenth century example, one needs look no farther than Moliere's company in France (Madame Pernelle in *Tartuffe*, for instance, was a drag role). David Carnegie, Department of Theatre & Film Victoria University of Wellington (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Green Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 21:53:53 GMT Subject: Re: Older Female Characters and Early Modern Acting John Ramsay mentions Robertson Davies' "Shakespeare's Boy Actors." This was published in London in 1939 by J. M. Dent & Sons; Chapter IV is entitled (in part) "The Old Women in Shakespeare's Plays and the Men who played them." Also, James H. Forse, in "Art Imitates Business" (Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1993) discusses (in Chapter 3) the likelihood that men (not boys) played the more mature female roles. Martin Green (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 09:35:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Older Female Characters and Early Modern Acting A contribution to the speculation-not-evidence department. The Nurse and Mercutio are played by the company's principal comedians. Like principals in theatrical companies throughout history, these performers engage in friendly onstage and offstage rivalry. The extended sparring match between the Nurse and Mercutio (R and J II, iv) allows this rivalry to find expression on the stage. "What saucie merchant is that?" "Farewell ancient lady" (quoting from memory.) Might a pair of adult principal comedians engage in similar sparring matches in *Much Ado about Nothing?* That adult male actors played older female roles is a plausible proposition. David Richman University of New Hampshire ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 10:29:39 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0209 Re: About This List; Music/Political Power Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0209. Friday, 15 March 1996. (1) From: Todd M. Lidh Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 12:12:36 -0500 Subj: About This List (2) From: Robin Headlam Wells Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 17:11:43 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: Q: Music/Political Power (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Todd M. Lidh Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 12:12:36 -0500 Subject: About This List I have to take some exception with what has been said about this "new list" which will somehow avoid such things as "Questions that are obviously from undergrads fishing for ideas (also called plagiarism)." While I'm not condoning plagiarism (please), I can safely say that undergrads have been the minority when it comes to fishing for ideas on SHAKSPER. After all, hardly a day goes by when someone does not post asking for feedback, bibliographical recommendation, or outright help on a particular topic. These have ranged from the performing of older female characters to Welsh characterizations in Shakespeare's plays. If we are not free to do this kind of collegiate interaction without the spectre of plagiarism being cast over it all, where does one go for such interactivity? It seems to me that this very concept is part of what instigated the formation of SHAKSPER in the first place. Also, how do we choose to define "excessive discussion on a topic?" Number of posts? What if the discussion is ground-breaking? Or just interesting? Who decides? Or, will it be decided which topics merit longer discussions? Is no one else trouble by what that implies? I don't mean to sound reactionary or blow things out of proportion ("shoot from the hip," as it were), but I do wonder about the motivation behind this movement to form a new and better list, one "free" from these annoyances of true interactive discussion. Todd M. Lidh UNC-Chapel Hill (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robin Headlam Wells Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 17:11:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: Q: Music/Political Power On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, Cherrie Gottesleben wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm thinking of a graduate thesis that links the power of music with political > power in the English Renaissance. Speech and rhetoric -- language and its > emotional tones might somehow be the bridge. If anyone can supply some > bibliographic information it would be welcome. Thanks! > Dear Cherrie, May I immodestly offer my own book, *Elizabethan Mythologies* (Cambridge University Press, 1994). It deals, amongst other things, with music as part of the process of political myth making. But I should warn you that it's a bit rude about some Cultural Materialist and New Historicist myth making. Good luck with your dissertation. Robin Headlam Wells, Editor, Renaissance Forum, Department of English, University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 10:31:47 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0210 Q: Physical Size of Elizabethans Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0210. Friday, 15 March 1996. From: Michael Swanson Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 12:04:58 -0500 Subject: Physical Size of Elizabethans One of the reasons typically used to explain how the Globe, Rose, etc., could have housed 200 - 3000 spectators given their relatively small (by contemporary st.andards) is that Elizabethans were small er people, on the average, than 20th century folks. When I mentioned this in a dramatic literature class today, one of my students laughed and refused to believe me -- humans couldn't have changed that much in 400 years, he said. In response, I found the most recent reference to this size difference that I could remember, in Iain Mackintosh's "Architecture, Actor, and Audience" (1993). But Mackintosh cites no source, leaving the impression that this knowledge is simply understood. I wonder if there is other evidence out there which theatre folk are aware of which would give more complete support for this assertion. I've checked Hodges's "The Globe Restored" and "The Third Globe," and Thomson's "Shakespeare's Theatre" and "Shakespeare's Professional Career," and find no other reference to the size of the Elizabethans. Can anyone help? Michael Swanson Chair, Fine Arts Department Director of Theatre Franklin College of Indiana ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 10:38:36 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0211 Re: Funeral Elegy (and Sonnets) Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0211. Friday, 15 March 1996. (1) From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 14:31:32 +0200 Subj: Funeral Elegy (and Sonnets) (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 18:45:02 -0800 Subj: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 14:31:32 +0200 Subject: Funeral Elegy (and Sonnets) Some at least of the Sonnets were in circulation in ms. before 1598 when Francis Meres referred to Shakespeare's "sugar'd sonnets among his private friends" comparing them favorably with Catullus' poems about Lesbia if memory serves. John (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 18:45:02 -0800 Subject: Funeral Elegy Lines beginning with "and": Elegy 28, Sonnets 66 Common nouns in caps: Elegy 33, Sonnets 57 The writer of the Funeral Elegy liked to use the word "Whiles" in place of "While" or "Whildst". In 578 lines he used the word 8 times. In 2,150 lines of the Sonnets, 1,850 of Lucrece, and 1,194 lines of Venus and Adonis, Shakespeare never uses the word once. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 10:42:38 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0212 Re: Dying/Saving Theatre Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0212. Friday, 15 March 1996. (1) From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 13:25:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: [Dying Theatre] (2) From: Terence Hawkes > Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 12:20:35 GMT Subj: Re: Saving Theatre (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 1996 13:25:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Dying Theatre] Re: the idea that the theatre is _always_ dying: We speak the things that matter With words that must be said. Can analysis be worthwhile? Is the theatre really dead? -- "The Dangling Conversation" S&G, circa 1965 Of course, Plato thought the theatre was dead, too -- or at least, that he could kill it. Jim Schaefer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes > Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 12:20:35 GMT Subject: Re: Saving Theatre What does Brooke Brod mean by 'new theatre'. Structures which encourage the pretentious to prance before the self-righteous already litter the landscape. Terence Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 08:48:35 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0213 Invitation to Join a Lori Berenson List Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0213. Saturday, 16 March 1996. From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 11:49:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Invitation to Join a Lori Berenson List Dear SHAKSPER Members, We invite you to be added to the list of supporters of Lori Berenson. Rather than getting information forwarded to you, you can get updates, action alerts and other information directly. If you are interested, please send your name and email address to B. Loerinc Helft, BLHBB@cunyvm.cuny.edu Mention that you are a SHAKSPER member when you write. Thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 09:12:31 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0214 Re: Funeral Elegy (and Sonnets) Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0214. Saturday, 16 March 1996. (1) From: John Velz Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 13:12:46 +0200 Subj: Whiles (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 08:51:05 -0800 Subj: Funeral Elegy (3) From: Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 18:41:29 -0500 Subj: Syntactical Examinations of Elegie (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 22:32:01 -0500 (EST) Subj: Subject: Re: SHK 7.0202 Re: Funeral Elegy (and the Sonnets) (5) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 23:05:48 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0211 Re: Funeral Elegy (and Sonnets) (6) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 23:11:08 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0205 Re: Funeral Elegy (and the Sonnets) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 13:12:46 +0200 Subject: Whiles Anent Richard Kennedy's comment that the word *whiles* does not appear in Sh's nondramatic poetry: It certainly does in appear in the plays, however. My old Bartlett's Shakespeare Concordance shows 13 instances of this word from 11 plays. John Velz (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 08:51:05 -0800 Subject: Funeral Elegy I dreamed of Shaxicon the other night, All copper-plated as he was bright, Striding like a giant out of Goya To seat himself upon a wondrous hill, His height above the world in poetry. A pilgrimage from far and wide advanced, Lovers all of Shakespeare, humble folk among, Gathering at the monster's sanctioned feet, Listening for the monster's brazen tongue To tell the terrible tale of Shakespeare's Later verse, so lusterless and stale. "Enjambment makes the world go round," Declared that polished giant of my dream. "The data base is sound, all dependent clauses Have been counted, hendiadys and permutatio Satisfy and prove that Shakespeare wrote the Elegy." And then the monster read, O, woe betide, The worse poem ever recited on a high hillside. It was the Funeral Elegy by W.S., And not a righteous eye but wept for the lad, Poor William Peter, stabbed to death on horse, Who enjoyed in all his life no other sin But tavern-hopping in the mid-day sun. Shaxicon was merciless, and for our doubt All half the thousand lines were wrung out For our weeping, and when the dirge was done, I found myself alone, and no birds sung. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 18:41:29 -0500 Subject: Syntactical Examinations of Elegie I have only just joined the list. It's possible I may be duplicating prior inquiries. If Don Foster's book has been released I have not been able to locate it. I have not tried requesting the book yet, hoping one of several bookstores I visit might have it. My question concerns SHAXICON. Specifically, is it capable of differentiating between parts of speech -- sytactical usage? What I have in mind is an examination of the Elegie such as John Porter Houston "Shakespearean Sentences" might have allowed it. How often, for example, does the author of the FE invert the normal SVO (Subject-Verb-Object) order? If Mr. Houston's work is to be trusted, Shakespeare, among other idiosyncracies, inverted this order to a greater degree than any of his rivals. Having followed the discussion thus far, it seems the program has tallied such information as word and image clusters, enjambment, the number of feminine endings, etc.? Patrick Gillespie [Editor's Note: You would be better served looking for Don Foster's book in your library rather than your bookstore. Here's the citation: Foster, Donald W. *Elegy by W.S.: A Study in Attribution. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1989. As for SAXICON, there has been much discussion in the past on SHAKSPER, but because we currently do not have the DATABASE FUNCTION under Unix I cannot give you the easy way to locate those discussion. However, you should consult the Summer 1995 edition of *The Shakespeare Newsletter* (54.5, No. 225) for a reprinting of Don Foster's description of the program from his July 4, 1995, posting to SHAKSPER. --HMC] (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 22:32:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Subject: Re: SHK 7.0202 Re: Funeral Elegy (and the Sonnets) >Dave Kathman writes: > >As I've just said, I wouldn't put the Sonnets as close to FE as you say -- >more like ten years {circa 1602?} than three or four. I don't have all the >numbers here, but in feminine endings, as has been noted, the Sonnets overall >are 7.7%, FE is 11.6%. In run-on lines (enjambment), the Sonnets are about 17% >(I don't have the exact number), FE is 46% --- but Shakespeare increased his >enjambment markedly in the late plays (from 19% in *Ado* to 31% in *Lear* to >46% in *Tempest*). Both the Sonnets and FE have the same number of relative >clauses, roughly 13 per 1000 words. FE has more hyphenated compound words >than the Sonnets (101 per 20,000 words vs. 75), but both are well within >Shakespeare's normal limits. In terms of vocabulary, I believe that the >Sonnets have more vocabulary in common with FE, percentagewise, than any >other text in Don Foster's considerable text archive. Okay, it looks as if we have a starting point. Comparing one text with another seems more fruitful (to me) than comparing all the Shakespeare texts without discrimination. Unfortunately for me, I have too much grading to pursue this argument right now, but, undoubtedly, I'll have more to say later! >And on glancing through Don Foster's list of English elegies, I see there was >an "Elegy upon His Honoured Friend Mr. James Herrewyn", written by "J. >Godschalck" (p.309). A relative, perhaps, Bill? I hope not. My family is supposed to have come here from Germany in the late 17th century. I hope we didn't leave Uncle Julius in England! Yours, Bill Godshalk (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 23:05:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0211 Re: Funeral Elegy (and Sonnets) Richard J Kennedy writes: >The writer of the Funeral Elegy liked to use the word "Whiles" in place of >"While" or "Whildst". In 578 lines he used the word 8 times. In 2,150 lines of >the Sonnets, 1,850 of Lucrece, and 1,194 lines of Venus and Adonis, Shakespeare >never uses the word once. I assume that "Whildst" is a misprint for "Whilest" -- which Shakespeare used eleven times. But according to the Spevack Concordance, Shakespeare used "Whiles" 82 times, most often in the history plays, but once in *LUC* line 1135: "whiles against a thorn." "While" is obviously the preferred form for Shakespeare; he used it (in this form) 339 times. Yours, Bill Godshalk (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 23:11:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0205 Re: Funeral Elegy (and the Sonnets) Michael Skovmand writes: >I must take issue with the Kathman/Godshalk *radicality* of uncertainty as to >the dating of the sonnets : sonnets 138 and 144 appeared in the miscellany *The >Passionate Pilgrim* in 1599, with only a few insignificant variations in >spelling! Yes, I agree. Remember that my original point was that the sonnets are "early." Dave Kathman disagrees, but to give us a battleground, I (tentatively) accepted his late dating. But if Katherine Duncan-Jones is correct, and Shakespeare organized the sonnets as he wished them to appear in 1609, and IF we also assume (and perhaps we have no right to make this assumption) that the sonnets were written in a fairly chronological order (i.e., 1 to 154), then the series was essentially completed by 1599. John Velz is also correct that Meres had read or had heard of Shakespeare's sonnets in the 90s. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 09:26:33 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0215 Re: About This List Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0215. Saturday, 16 March 1996. (1) From: Susan Mather Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 12:44:55 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0199 Re: About This List (2) From: Suzanne Lewis Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 09:02:05 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0207 Re: About This List (3) From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Friday, 15 Mar 96 15:00 EST Subj: About the list (4) From: David Evett Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 15:46 ET Subj: About this List (5) From: Ken Steele Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 96 05:40:39 UT Subj: RE: SHK 7.0207 Re: About This List (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 12:44:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0199 Re: About This List While we have continually talked "about this list," I was going to let it go and delete when M. Saenger, obviously addressing the remark about Shakespeare's audiences, said something to the effect about undergraduates and their papers topics. I wonder then if this includes me--to say that I am asking people for help on topics--so that I may plagiarize. I, by the way, am a graduate student and while many ideas I have are covered by the time I finish a paper on Shakespeare, nevertheless, it is I who am writing despite any help with sources I am given as to what materials I need to be looking into. To ask for sources is not plagiarism. If it was then my professors wouldn't tell me what sources I need to use on top of the ones that I have collected when I turn in my prospectus for a paper. Not only that, but Shakespearian criticism is vast and sometimes, even with the help of librarians, good sources are lost between the cracks of the MLA CD ROM, etc. If you are concerned about plagiarism, I would suggest you limit what you convey to an audience--regardless of what list you should choose to belong to. But I feel that "education" does not always come from the lofty corners of discourse; at times, it comes from those little bursts of (perhaps) naivete that can seem small and insignificant at the time and then branch into something marvelous. But, if a move is to be made--so be it. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Suzanne Lewis Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 09:02:05 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0207 Re: About This List I tried so hard to stay out of this discussion; however, I must address Michael Saenger and his "rules." So, let's see... *Any one can subscribe Meaning we're all welcome to bask in the intellect of those deemed worthy of posting *Submissions will be screened Meaning anyone with the audacity to post better be worthy *[Naive questions] will be welcome Which contradicts your later rule that *Questions that should simply be asked to a librarian [will be screened out] *[Diverse points of view] will be welcome Which contradicts your later rule that *Excessive discussion on any one topic [will be screened out] You see, the more diverse the points of view, the more extensive the discussion... *Questions that are obviously from undergrads fishing for ideas (also called plagiarism) [will be screened out] Exactly what is your implication here? That undergraduates possessing the intellectual wherewithal to seek the critical analysis of SHAKSPEReans (people who share such analysis on a daily basis) would plagiarize their findings rather than utilize them as sources? Please! Have you no faith in those who aspire to academic (specifically Shakespearean) greatness? Shakespeare is not a course of study often pursued by unintellectual riffraff. Besides, I'm sure every good Web Surfing researcher has visited a Web site to find out how to cite Internet resources. Since you obviously haven't considered this, perhaps you should check out the following: "How to Cite Internet Resources" _Classroom Connect_ March 1996 http://www.classroom.net/classroom/CitingNetResources.htm MLA Citation Guide URL: http://www.cas.usf.edu/english/walker/mla.html Citing Computer Documents URL: http://neal.ctstateu.edu/history/cite.html Williams College Library Web URL: http://www.williams.edu:803/library/library.www/cite.html *Excessive contributions from any one member of the list [will be screened out] So you'll force these well-informed intellectuals you speak of to quell their multitude of responses for fear of being seen as an "excessive [contributor]"? My! Yet another contradiction. In my estimation, this rule would include you, Michael Saenger. I find postings of yours in digests on an almost daily basis, and some days I see your name glaring up at me more than once. Seems excessive to me. I'd like to receive your listserv digests to see just how similar they'll be to SHAKSPER. Your rules don't seem much different from ours, with the obvious exception of your intention to keep out the rising intellectuals, which--I might remind you--you once were. You *are* an elitist, aren't you, sir? (BTW, the title is the result of my fine upbringing and polite nature, not my reverence for you.) Good day all, Suzanne Lewis English instructor & graduate student (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Friday, 15 Mar 96 15:00 EST Subject: About the list If you can stand one more comment about people dissatisfied with the list... I'm curious as to what makes those who want to start a new, "improved" list so certain that a few months or even weeks down the line, there won't be cries of dissatisfaction from people who think the >new< list isn't serious enough. Where do these schisms ultimately end, anyhow? SHAKSPER itself is the result of cry for a more "appropriate" forum for discussing Shakespearean drama and related issues, as opposed to theatre groups on Usenet or other more general drama mailing lists. In the future, everyone will have their own custom-tailored mailing list, with one subscriber each. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 15:46 ET Subject: About this List I side with the democrats as regards keeping the list open to most comers. I must say, however, that I, too, am troubled by undergraduates using the list as what appears to be the first step toward the working bibliography of a paper, not because it's "plagiarism" (a very peculiar use of that word) but because they need to be learning how to use the traditional tools of the scholar, resort ing to broadcast appeals only when the standard data bases have not yielded up any useful materials. On similar grounds, I get irritated by contributors who offer up vague remarks or ask questions that could be sharpened or answered by easily available standard authorities--the OED, the Arden or Oxford or Cambridge editions of the plays, and so on. I've been guilty of this sort of thing myself--part of the appeal of the medium is its immediacy, and it's deflating to have to leave the terminal, maybe even to postpone writing and sending the item until you've had time to check a few things. But taking that kind of responsibility would respond in some measure to Michael Saenger's complaints. From the Glass House, Dave Evett (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Steele Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 96 05:40:39 UT Subject: RE: SHK 7.0207 Re: About This List Dear Fellow SHAKSPEReans; Until now, I have watched in quiet alarm but refrained from interfering in Michael Saenger's proposal of a segregated Shakespeare discussion group for "a higher level of dialogue." Like an anxious parent, I have told myself that SHAKSPER must live its own life now, and make its own decisions. Or perhaps, as a Canadian living in the time of Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard, I have simply grown accustomed to sitting back quietly and watching separatists incite rebellion and attempt to divide a promising community I helped to build, and still hold dear. Well, every now and then I appreciate my parents' advice... I believe Hardy Cook is doing a superb job moderating this list -- and those of you out there who have never tried to moderate an internet conference should know that it is an incredibly *BIG* and largely thankless job, too. Michael Saenger's naive announcement of a new list, although he has "no particular passion to run it," no idea which backbone Listserv would control it, and no editor to volunteer the roughly 80 hours a month it would take to edit it, is doomed to failure before it begins. When I first founded SHAKSPER, I had youthful passion, the support of the University of Toronto computing services department, the continual advice and assistance of Willard McCarty (founding editor of HUMANIST), and the unlimited time only an undisciplined graduate student can provide. I also had the delusion (for all of a month) that it was possible to edit an Internet discussion group like a scholarly journal. I corrected spelling and grammar errors, provided references when they were omitted, answered routine queries, and tried to shelter the few "big names" I had recruited from anything that might drive them away. I eventually learned my lesson -- the Internet is not a journal, and we shouldn't treat it as if it were one. In the end, we created a dual structure for SHAKSPER, including a "formal" fileserver for conference papers, abstracts, draft articles and other research, and an "informal" discussion group for chat amongst colleagues. Those antisocials who were merely annoyed by chatter could send a one-line command to Listserv, "SET SHAKSPER NOMAIL", which would still allow them to download articles, logbooks, and other resources from the fileserver. (These would be the same folks who attended the plenary sessions at Shakespeare Association conferences, but shunned the far more invigorating after-hours conversations in the halls.) The premise was that academics would willingly share their ideas in a collaborative forum. We hoped a revolution in scholarship would result, in which credentials and credit were less important than advancing knowledge and understanding Shakespeare. Inevitably, though, society and psychology lag far behind the technology. Nobody gets tenure by posting a brilliant idea in an email note. A Shakespeare list committed to the level of quality in Shakespeare Quarterly (which really isn't raising the bar very high!) would be dead silent. If you want higher discourse, try it NOW, HERE, and see what happens. Don't wait for someone ELSE to set up a forum, someone ELSE to edit it, and someone ELSE to start the conversation. Here on SHAKSPER, we have assembled the single largest collection of Shakespearean scholars, actors, students and enthusiasts the world has to offer -- "infinite variety" and immeasurable intellect. Browse the membership list and you will discover some very respected Shakespeareans, literary theorists, stage historians and bibliographers. Separate the bibliographers from the actors, or the students from the professors, and everyone will lose. I urge EVERYONE to become their own editors -- decide for yourself whose words are worth listening to, which topics are worth pursuing, and when you have the time or inclination to indulge in some idle chatter. But don't expect some infallible editor to come along and do it FOR you. Yours ever, Ken Steele ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 11:30:05 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0216 Re: Physical Size of Elizabethans Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0216. Saturday, 16 March 1996. (1) From: James Schaefer Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 13:19:31 -0500 (EST) Subj: Elizabethan Stature (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 13:35:31 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0210 Q: Physical Size of Elizabethans (3) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 13:28:39 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0210 Q: Physical Size of Elizabethans (4) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 14:13:41 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0210 Q: Physical Size of Elizabethans (5) From: Roger Taylor Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 12:35:05 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0210 Q: Physical Size of Elizabethans (6) From: Michael Swanson Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 18:08:33 -0500 Subj: Re: Physical size of Elizabethans (7) From: Jay Johnson Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 18:33:23 -0700 (MST) Subj: RE: SHK 7.0210 Q: Physical Size of Elizabethans (8) From: Denis Knowles Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 19:50:22 -0800 Subj: Physical Size (9) From: Joe Shea Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 17:45:31 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0210 Q: Physical Size of Elizabethans (10) From: Florence Amit Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 11:22:48 +0200 Subj: physical size of Elizabethans (11) From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 96 06:39:12 UT Subj: RE: SHK 7.0210 Q: Physical Size of Elizabethans (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 13:19:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Elizabethan Stature Michael Swanson: I cannot directly answer your question about the stature of Elizabethans, not with facts at least. I could hear my biologist wife voicing a claim similar to your student's, based on the probability of there having been minimal genetic change in 400 years -- except that she also knows a lot about the effects of nutrition and health care and environmental factors on human growth, all of which, I'm sure, could have had a severely limiting effect on the developmental physiology of at least some Elizabethans. I have read often that one piece of indirect evidence concerning the slight stature of earlier periods is the relatively small size of surviving suits of armor. Of course, it could be that only short folks went into that line of work, like jockeys do now. Jim Schaefer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 13:35:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0210 Q: Physical Size of Elizabethans Michael; I can't give you a published reference, but if you have any historical buildings or rooms with furniture and clothing from frontier days nearby, the evidence of the size difference is obvious. As a child I lived in Virginia, where such evidence abounds, and I remember how astonished I was at the tiny clothes. You should be able to find the statistics on the size of the Mayflower, for instance, or other well-known vessels, length of the bunks, distance from floor to ceiling, which would perhaps make the point. Stephanie Hughes (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 13:28:39 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0210 Q: Physical Size of Elizabethans This is what I know about this... While visiting the "shrine" of Shakespeare's house in Stratford-upon-Avon, the historical interpreter took great care to point out the size of the small bed. He then went on to emphatically refute the "short Elizabethan" myth, which often arises when people see the short Elizabethan bed. The beds are short because Elizabethan's slept sitting up, partly afraid to lie down and be mistaken for a dead person! Having done some historical interpretation myself, many people asked me when working at an historic fort (dating back only to 1836) whether the shorter doors proved how much shorter these soldiers were. Not surprisingly, the doors are short so that the building is strong and could withstand bombardment more easily. This concept also applied to other construction principles, especially in houses built to last generations, (unlike our semi-disposible North American culture). Note the very low ceilings in the other houses at Stratford-upon-Avon: the higher your building is, the more difficult it is to build and heat. There is some truth in the fact that the average Elizabethan (and Victorians too for that matter) where SLIGHTLY shorter than we are today (and most definitely Smaller in girth) due primarily to quality of food - vitamins, balance of proteins and grains, availability of fruits and vegetables, etc., etc. However, tallness is - as your student probably felt - a genetic trait which would take thousands of years to change. [except , of course, for those times when the aliens come and take us away, or the toxic nuclear waste gets us and changes our DNA.] (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 14:13:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0210 Q: Physical Size of Elizabethans Size differentials can easily be observed to anyone who goes to the Tower and looks at the average soldier's gear. Or try the replica of the pilgrim ship at Plymouth where the size of the bunks indicate that no one over 5 feet could possibly be comfortable sleeping there. Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L9 (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Taylor Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 12:35:05 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0210 Q: Physical Size of Elizabethans I expect most of the evidence is largely circumstantial...based on surviving clothes, shoes, and other things. The problem here is that such things survive usually because it was either too small or too large to be practically worn. I can cite my own circumstantial evidence. I (6'2") wandered through Jane Austen's home at Chawton. I bumped my head numerous times on the doorways and had to crouch down going up the stairs. But then one might well ask...were they all this way? Going up the tower stairs in the center of Oxford, I felt like a giant. Oten cited reason for differences in sizes is diet. We eat better now, babies have a better nutritional start now than 400 years ago. Lee Roger Taylor, Jr. Associate Professor Humanities Division Western Wyoming Community College (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Swanson Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 18:08:33 -0500 Subject: Re: Physical size of Elizabethans Thanks to all of you who responded to my query about the physical size of Elizabethans. Certainly the many suggestions of referring to extant architecture, furniture, clothing, and armor are very useful, and they may even provide a future research topic for me. I also wanted to cite two pieces of information found in chapter 3 of Christine Eccles's "The Rose Theatre" (1990), which, while not footnoted directly, are apparently drawn from reliable sources she cites in her bibliography on the chapter. They are: 1) "The frame of the average Elizabethan, according to the size of burial plots for plague victims, was 5 feet 5 3/4 inches." 2) "Inigo Jones, designing indoor theatre for a fashionable seventeenth-century audience, allowed an 18-inch square per person, compared to the 17 1/2 inch x 21 inch allowance at the twentieth-century Olivier Theatre which has to seat larger and bulkier people." Michael Swanson Chair, Fine Arts Department Director of Theatre Franklin College of Indiana (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay Johnson Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 18:33:23 -0700 (MST) Subject: RE: SHK 7.0210 Q: Physical Size of Elizabethans In _Rebuilding Shakespeare's Globe_, John Orrell makes the following observation concerning the required changes in the modern reconstruction: "The most profound change required by the fire regulations is the maximum number of visitors allowed to crowd into the Globe at one time. The figure for the capacity of the original Globe, 3000 people, is neatly halved. Altogether about 1500 visitors will be able to squeeze into the galleries and yard of the reconstructed Globe to watch a performance. This halving of the capacity is an advantage in two ways. First, it means that people with modern physiques need not bother to undertake the painful labour of trying to fit themselves into the original 18-inch space allocated to the Elizabethans. Secondly, the doubling of the available space makes it easy to conceive how squeezed Elizabethans were when the Globe was crowded." (165) Jay Johnson Medicine Hat College (8)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Denis Knowles Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 19:50:22 -0800 Subject: Physical Size Being a towering individual of 5'5", the height of prior generations has always interested me. Though I do not have the books at hand, we always seem to be in a state of moving, I recall many indications from works prior to the 1980's commenting on the small size of Europeans in general. Most authors seem to attribute this to poor nutrition in the general population and as proof mention the size of surviving suits of armour and other artifacts. Fortunately better historians prevailed, pointing out that the surviving artifacts survived because they were outgrown. Most of the full sized clothing and armour was worn and passed down generation to generation until it was no longer servicable at which time fibers might be re-carded into other fabric or relegated to the rag pile, and metal forged or smelted into newer and changing pieces. Much to my chagrin, I am not only short today but I would likely have been short during the bard's time as well. A note of personal observation: I recall being quite stunned at the size difference of students in a local community college compared to the size of students in the private college I attended. The wealthier students were indeed larger on the whole, male and female. They were also markedly harder working individuals. Draw whatever conclusions you wish. Denis Knowles, AS, BFA, BS (9)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Shea Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 17:45:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0210 Q: Physical Size of Elizabethans That was certainly a stimulating post, Michael, on the size of Elizabethans. Judging from the effects of nutritional deficits on the average Chinese or Mexican, I suspect the Elizabethans were much less tall than they are, on average. There must be anthropological data from which one might project backwards, such as a rate of growth standard following contact with Western civilization, birth weight of babies in pre- and post-modern times, etc. My guess is that the average male was about 5'4", and the average female about 4'10'., and that the average adult male would have weighed about 140, and the the female 105. Best, Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter (10)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Florence Amit Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 11:22:48 +0200 Subject: physical size of Elizabethans This is in reply to Michael Swanson's request for a reliable source for the sizes of Elizabethan people: I do not think that a modern English person who had been brought up to regard many statues on old tombs or had seen the numerous rows of armour standing in the Tower of London and at castles would have asked the question. One needs little more than a tape measure and a copy book to gather one's own proof. As a tourist I have been struck by the slightness of these old aristocrats. Florence Amit (11)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 96 06:39:12 UT Subject: RE: SHK 7.0210 Q: Physical Size of Elizabethans Well, there is the well-known evidence from a bit earlier based on the ridiculously small suits of armor. That evidence simply cannot be ignored. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 11:38:30 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0217 Re: Dying/Saving Theatre Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0217. Saturday, 16 March 1996. (1) From: Harry Hill Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 14:26:31 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: Saving Theatre comment by Terence Hawkes (2) From: Denis Knowles Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 19:50:26 -0800 Subj: Dying Theatre (3) From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 96 06:35:57 UT Subj: RE: SHK 7.0212 Re: Dying/Saving Theatre (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 14:26:31 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: Saving Theatre comment by Terence Hawkes The prancing viewed as pretentious by the righteously righteous rather than by the blind self-righteous is preferable to the poorly ambiguous prancing of political actors in front of the professional avant-garde audience who respond to anything they think they understand. As an actress friend of mine observed before the curtain rose on the pair of us doing an Ayckbourn play some years ago at the second show on a Saturday night, "Who the fuck do they think they are, my dear, coming in here drunk and bedrugged out of their minds, expecting us to entertain them and consolidate their opinions? Who the FUCK do they think they ARE?" Harry Hill Montreal (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Denis Knowles Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 19:50:26 -0800 Subject: Dying Theatre Theatre Dying? Look up the number of active professional for profit and non-profit theatres as well as the number of serious part time theatres in the USA between the years immediately following the second world war, or before it for that matter, and the number of theatres in the last two decades. Not for profit theatres alone grew from a handful to between 3 & 400 as of eight years ago. If they are now decreasing in number I have not seen it. Denis Knowles, AS, BFA, BS (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 96 06:35:57 UT Subject: RE: SHK 7.0212 Re: Dying/Saving Theatre I'd read otherwise; >Of course, Plato thought the theatre was dead, too -- or at least, that he >could kill it. >Jim Schaefer This is not relevant to your main point but - I read the situation... That with the addition of the third character and the transcription of the oral Socratic (theatrically performed) dialogue, Plato believed (correctly) that he could transform the dramatic form into a formal dialectical (performed on the "porch" in precise stichometric dialogues) education-delivery process. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 11:49:20 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0218 Qs: R3 Spinoffs; Film Course; Mysteries; Future of Sh. Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0218. Saturday, 16 March 1996. (1) From: Subashini Subbarao Date: Friday, 15 Mar 96 13:30:18 EST Subj: Richard III Spinoffs (2) From: David Evett Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 15:56 ET Subj: Q: Film Course (3) From: John Velz Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 22:15:29 +0200 Subj: Medieval Drama Productions (4) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 10:56:02 -0500 Subj: The Future of Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subashini Subbarao Date: Friday, 15 Mar 96 13:30:18 EST Subject: Richard III Spinoffs Are there any interesting Richard III spinoffs available on video? Suba Subbarao sxsubbar@vm.occ.cc.mi.us (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 15:56 ET Subject: Q: Film Course We're talking about starting up a Shakespeare on Film course, and I would be very grateful for suggestions from experienced hands about managing the mechanical end of such a course--especially, about the problems of making the filmed materials available to students outside the classroom. The issue is especially urgent at a commuter school where it is very difficult to get even small groups of students, to say nothing of a whole class, together outside the scheduled meeting time. I'm also extremely open to suggestions about the best way to quote, as it were, from tapes during lectures--is it acceptable under the copyright laws to copy individual moments, so as to avoid having to spend time fast-forwarding and reversing, for instance? Any experience with laser disks? And so on. Dave Evett (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 22:15:29 +0200 Subject: Medieval Drama Productions Does anyone know of British productions of medieval plays scheduled this summer when I could see them -- August 7-17? I would be glad to know either through the SHAKSPER listserv or by e-mail to me at above address. I would have been very sorry to miss the "Lincoln Cycle" [i.e., N.-Town] as done splendidly in Lincoln Cathedral in summer, 1994. Anything like that I would be awfully glad to know of. Thanks. John (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 10:56:02 -0500 Subject: The Future of Shakespeare Here's an attempt at naivete, from one looking in from the world of theatre: I wonder if others might like to speculate on the future of Shakespearean Studies? Where are you "heading" with your research and how does that relate to where you imagine the various schools of research into Shakespeare will get us in the next 50 years or so? Will computers ever be trusted to help - witness the distaste used to describe SHAXICON on this list - and will Shakespeare scholars come to rely more on linking Communication studies, Semantics, as an approach to these texts? Why not dream a little a little dream with us...? Eric Armstrong The School of Dramatic Art University of Windsor, Canada ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 13:06:32 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0219 Re: Music; Older Female Characters; Bardolatry Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0219. Saturday, 16 March 1996. (1) From: Cherrie Gottsleben Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 14:13:11 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0209 Re: Music/Political Power (2) From: David Carnegie Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 11:23:40 +1200 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0208 Older Female Characters and Early Modern Acting (3) From: Bill Day Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 18:06:23 -0500 Subj: Bardolatry (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cherrie Gottsleben Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 14:13:11 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0209 Re: Music/Political Power MANY thanks to those of you who suggested sources and rendered helpful information concerning my research on music and political power in the English Renaissance! I shall inform you of my progress. If any new information pops up please let me know. Thanks again Cherrie (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Carnegie Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 11:23:40 +1200 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0208 Older Female Characters and Early Modern Acting Dick Robinson's age: in reply to Helen Ostovich, Robinson is known to have been playing women's roles for the King's Men as early as 1611, including The Lady in *The Second Maiden's Tragedy*, and, I think likely, the Duchess in *The Duchess of Malfi* in 1613 or 1614. By 1619 he had become a sharer, and was playing men's roles. David Carnegie, Department of Theatre & Film Victoria University of Wellington (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Day Date: Friday, 15 Mar 1996 18:06:23 -0500 Subject: Bardolatry Bernice W. Kliman writes: >I have heard that it was G. B. Shaw, who was NOT a bardolater. The OED, anyway, >credits him with the 1st--and multiple uses of the word--starting in 1901. No, not a bardolater. Nevertheless, he arguably had as great a knowledge and love of Shakespeare as any SHAKSPERian. Michael Holroyd in his biography points out that Shaw had memorized several of Shakespeare's plays before he reached adulthood. Although Holroyd suggests that Shaw may have been put off by the robust sexuality in Shakespeare's plays, he attributes Shaw's printed assaults on "the Bard" mainly to theater politics and Shaw's larger assault on Victorian snobbery and the conventions of the Victorian theater. Bill Day billday@us.net ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 13:16:30 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0220 Re: About This List Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0220. Saturday, 16 March 1996. (1) From: Philip Spagnolo Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 09:12:45 -0500 Subj: Re: About This List (2) From: Joanne Woolway Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 16:52:56 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: This list (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Philip Spagnolo Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 09:12:45 -0500 Subject: Re: About This List >Also, how do we choose to define "excessive discussion on a topic?" Number of >posts? What if the discussion is ground-breaking? Or just interesting? Who >decides? Or, will it be decided which topics merit longer discussions? > >Is no one else trouble by what that implies? I totally agree that the list is being berated unfairly by the academic elite. I have subscribed to the list only recently and I am immediately faced with talk of a separate group which will sustain only a select group of people. What kind of talk is this? As an undergraduate student I feel I am being backed into a corner and told to mind my manners while the adults discuss the harmony of the spheres. I certainly am not a person "fishing" for term paper ideas. My research is done independently, thank you. But I also realize that some subjects require the help of others more experienced in the field. Should people be ostracized in asking for bibliographic information? Having a person determine the worthiness of a discussion is sick. It undermines the whole basis of a list designed to serve people showing a genuine interest in the subject. Coincidentally, I belong to many mailing lists and I've never found such mutinous behaviour anywhere. Censorship is just another means of control; and I don't think subscribers would feel comfortable with a list that controls their direction of thought. Philip J. Spagnolo Dylan@feldspar.com (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Woolway Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 16:52:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: This list Has anyone considered the practical results of starting a new Shakespeare list? If even a few regular contributors make it clear that they do not wish to subscribe to the new list, then the unwillingness of other participants to miss out on a good discussion on SHAKSPER will probably mean that few will unsubscribe themselves from SHAKSPER and be content to be only in on the "higher level" discussion of the new list. If, therefore, most people subscribe to both lists then all of their inboxes will be full of exactly the same postings as they would otherwise have had, but some with one list heading, some with others. Hardly a valuable change. It seems that the only way that this scheme can work is by luring away all of the "serious" academics from SHAKSPER and ensuring that no quality discussion happens here any more. This would, in effect, be to destroy this list. I have no wish to support a new list which would (I have to hope unintentionally) effect this destruction. It hardly seems a fitting response to the work put in by Hardy Cook and others and it also seems practically ill-conceived. Joanne Woolway ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 13:27:53 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0221 SHAKSPER Will Be Down: 3/17/96 to 3/19/96 Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0221. Saturday, 16 March 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Saturday, March 16, 1996 Subject: SHAKSPER Will Be Down: 3/17/96 to 3/19/96 Dear SHAKSPEReans, Due to construction work, SHAKSPER will be down from Sunday evening, March 17, 1996, until Tuesday evening, March 19, 1996. This time corresponds to the closing of Bowie State for spring break. I will try to clear my mailbox tomorrow and get out one more set of digests before the shut down. Mail during the shut down should be delivered to LISTSERV and queued for me for when we are back on-line. --Hardy Cook Editor PS: Don't send me any enjoy your break messages; I'll be writing/editing our Period Review Report for our accreditation body. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 15:04:54 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0222 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0222. Sunday, 17 March 1996. (1) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 08:49:55 -0800 Subj: Funeral Elegy (2) From: Sydney Kasten Date: Sunday, 17 Mar 1996 10:21:36 +0200 (IST) Subj: Dr. Dodypoll, parodies, W.S. (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 08:49:55 -0800 Subject: Funeral Elegy Correction: Poetry lines Use of "Whiles" Funeral Elegy 578 8 times Shakespeare 5194 once Thanks to Bill Godshalk. And here's another word, very small, but one of those unconscious "word-prints". Lines Use of "In" Funeral Elegy 578 120 times Sonnets 578 67 times (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sydney Kasten Date: Sunday, 17 Mar 1996 10:21:36 +0200 (IST) Subject: Dr. Dodypoll, parodies, W.S. Richard Kennedy Gave us twenty examples of "quotations" from Shakespeare's plays to be found in Doctor Dodypoll. Here a comparison with another better known work. Macbeth: I had most need of blessing and 'Amen' Stuck in my throat. (Act II Scene II) Melissa: "Are men", she would have added, but "are men" Stuck stuck in her throat! (Princess Ida, Gilbert & Sullivan, Act II Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. William Schwenk Gilbert was one of the more popular satirists of the XIXth century, and he and his collaborator enjoyed taking off both literary and operatic styles as well as social attitudes. Gilbert particularly enjoyed using iambic pentameter for continuity dialogue and someone better versed than I might tell us to what extent this was purely parodic imitation and to what extent the imitation of emulation. Is it not as reasonable to suppose that Dr. Dodypoll was written by an imitator as to suppose that Shakespeare wrote it and was so ashamed of it that he didn't sign it? By the way, Gilbert was fascinated by the plot idea of the magic lozenge, which caused much tension with Sullivan who derided the idea. It was eventually used in "The Sorcerer" as a potion that worked like Oberon's drops in "Midsummer-Night's Dream". Sullivan wrote music to a ballet on a nautical theme called "Pineapple *Poll*", I'm sure no relation to DodyPoll. I don't think Gilbert had a hand in it. Finally, I can't resist pointing to Gilbert's initials: W.S. Gilbert was born 250 years after Shakespeare died. Even given his gift for parody, his wicked, iconoclastic sense of humour, and his ability to maintain a consistent dramatic mood he could Never, Never commit forgery. All: What, Never? (H.M.S. Pinafore G&S) But certainly the ink and paper and have been authenticated as to date etc. Please excuse this wicked thought that has no place in a serious discussion. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 15:10:09 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0223 Re: About This List Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0223. Sunday, 17 March 1996. (1) From: Michael Saenger Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 17:52:33 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0220 Re: About This List (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 17 Mar 1996 15:23:55 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0220 Re: About This List (3) From: James Schaefer Date: Sunday, 17 Mar 1996 13:22:13 -0500 (EST) Subj: About this list (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 17:52:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0220 Re: About This List It makes sense, I suppose, that I received a flood of private messages expressing support for my position and consistent public messages against it. Some who rant against my position are more eloquent supporters than I could ever be. I have taken pains to clarify that no one would be excluded from my list. I particularly feel that a posting calling me "sick" and "mutinous" is precisely the sort of thing that should not be sent out by the editor. By the way, I am not a member of "the elite"; I am a graduate student. I wish to pursue my education, which is not helped by reading comments such as "Didn't Bacon write somthing like that?" I don't see how that educates anybody. Several of the people who wrote to me privately said that they were geographically cut off from many resources, and depended on email as a key resource. These are rational, hard-working people on the ladder of scholarship in far-flung places who deserve a good product in their in-box. So much for elitism. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 17 Mar 1996 15:23:55 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0220 Re: About This List The discussion about the splitting of SHAKSPER raises some important questions about Internet access. The Internet has its origins in military and academic (esp. science) networks and internetworks, and these communities are still over-represented on the Internet because individuals in these areas get their access for free at work. Commercial presence on the Internet is relatively new, and public access (in the sense of being able to buy an account) is also new. The origins of the Internet have had a powerful influence on the content of discussions in Usenet groups and email lists. I suspect that SHAKSPER owes it origins to working academics who wanted a forum for discussion. But do they still 'own' SHAKSPER? Those who dislike Michael Saenger's suggestion for a new, elitist, list seem to be offended by the notion that some people's comments and ideas are not worth listening to. But how far should 'democratization' go? Is there nobody whose opinions on Shakespeare you would like filtered out? Wouldn't a Citizens' Band kind of openness destroy SHAKSPER? Filtering has been applied to email lists since their beginnings, and primarily it operates by pricing. Those who get Internet access free as part of their work will necessarily be over-represented, and those who do not and cannot afford the equipment and online time would be excluded entirely. I have an elitist preference about whose views I want to hear: I want to engage with the academic community, including theatre practitioners who work in education (and maybe professionals of the theatre too - maybe!). I do not want to discuss my area of interest with those for whom it is a hobby. So far SHAKSPER has been pretty interesting, but I share Saenger's concern that improved access for non-academic users reduces the quality of the discussions. Does my idea of the academic community include undergraduates? graduate students? I don't know. Probably just the latter. Does anybody have a definition of a community with which they would like to share their opinions which is not elitist? That last is not a rhetorical question. I'd like to hear responses from undergraduate subscribers to SHAKSPER (one of the groups I would exclude) who wouldn't mind if school children joined in our discussions. Gabriel Egan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Sunday, 17 Mar 1996 13:22:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: About this list In appreciation of Ken Steele's comments: Your admonition that we list-users not be afraid to think for ourselves, in this context, is a reminder that the goal of all our educational efforts is precisely intellectual independence. But also intellectual (dare I use the word?) modesty. As my own doctoral adviser, coming from the theatrical point of view, always reminded me, every performance _is_ a performance -- and yet it is also and _always_ a rehearsal, an "essay," a search, an approximation. Jim Schaefer Georgetown University ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 15:14:16 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0224 Re: *R3* Spinoffs Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0224. Sunday, 17 March 1996. (1) From: Janis Lull Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 16:57:10 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0218 Qs: R3 Spinoffs (2) From: Laura Blanchard Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 21:57:47 -0500 Subj: *R3* Spinoffs (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Janis Lull Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 16:57:10 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0218 Qs: R3 Spinoffs > Are there any interesting Richard III spinoffs available on video? > > Suba Subbarao There are at least two spinoffs called "Tower of London." One dates from 1939 and stars Basil Rathbone as Richard, Vincent Price as Clarence, and Boris Karloff as a homicidal henchman who has no real analog in Shakespeare. The other "Tower," directed by Roger Corman in 1962, features Vincent Price as Richard. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Blanchard Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 21:57:47 -0500 Subject: *R3* Spinoffs I'm not sure what's meant by "R3 spinoffs available on video." There's a real howler with Boris Karloff, Basil Rathbone and/or Vincent Price -- the original was made in the Thirties and I think it was also remade in the Fifties -- called _The Tower of London_. It's available on video pretty cheap. The first episode of Rowan Atkinson's comedy series _Blackadder_ explains how Edmund Blackadder accidentally stabbed kindly uncle Richard III on Bosworth Field, thus paving the way for the reign of Richard IV (Brian Blessed). The Teaching Company (Springfield VA) has video lecture series, including one with Dartmouth's Peter Saccio doing the history plays, including Richard III. There is of course the Olivier version, available on video -- including a version that shows 17 minutes of previously unseen stuff, including Gielgud's "false, fleeting, perjured Clarence" and the scene where all the hard-core Yorkists taunt Elizabeth Woodville for her Lancastrian heritage. One would expect the McKellen version to be available on video in the coming months, as well as Pacino's documentary, which was previewed at Sundance and is expected to be released some time in the coming weeks. Regards, Laura Blanchard Richard III Society, American Branch lblanchard@aol.com http://www.webcom.com/blanchrd/index.html ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 15:19:52 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0225 Other 17th Century Conferences; Shakespearians in SF Area Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0225. Sunday, 17 March 1996. (1) From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 96 16:49:04 UT Subj: Other 17th century conferences (2) From: Michael Ginsborg Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 17:35:38 -0800 Subj: For Shakespearians in the San Francisco area (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 96 16:49:04 UT Subject: Other 17th century conferences Actually I am a Bacon specialist. Does anyone happen to know of other 17th century conferences? Bacon; The Baroque Constitutionalism; Political Theory; Civil Wars; Stuarts James I stuff like that there...? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Ginsborg Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 17:35:38 -0800 Subject: For Shakespearians in the San Francisco area If you live in the Bay Area, and want to join an informal group to attend local performances and discuss the plays, please send me an e-mail at ginsborg@global.california.com. I am considering the California Shakespeare Festival in Orinda, Shakespeare Santa Cruz, and the Marin Shakespeare Company, among other possibilities. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 15:23:49 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0226 Re: The Future; Size of Elizabethans Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0226. Sunday, 17 March 1996. (1) From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 16:54:37 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Shakespeare, the Future, & Semantics (2) From: Ann Chance Date: Sunday, 17 Mar 1996 22:33:07 +0800 (WST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0216 Re: Physical Size of Elizabethans (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 16:54:37 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Shakespeare, the Future, & Semantics Paul Hawkins was teaching Hamlet I.i this week and was astonished to find that a goodly number of his Shakspeare students at Marianopolis College in Montreal did not know what "mourning" was, then doubly surprised when some more admitted they had never seen or used the word "dew". I think we may revert when teaching *anything* to the old "learn these twenty words today and twenty more tomorrow" of our high schools. Accessibility has often been a problem with Shakespeare, but I think this most recent innocence is a signal to us to teach less thematically and politically and more semantically and linguistically. These plays are almost nothing at all, without their words and the rich ambiguities and resonances wihin them. Harry Hill Montreal (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ann Chance Date: Sunday, 17 Mar 1996 22:33:07 +0800 (WST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0216 Re: Physical Size of Elizabethans As I understand it, physical stature is quite significantly influenced by the (net rather than proportional) amount of animal proteins in the diet during childhood. I'd therefore expect average stature to have generally increased with wealth/social status, and would be interested to know of any evidence, literary or otherwise, that this was so. (Offhand, I don't remember any such thing, myself, apart from the still prevalent general association in fictional representation of physical stature with *individual* - and particularly male - social, moral, and spiritual stature.) However, I'd imagine that an even slightly visible positive correlation between stature and social stratum would have been made much of, especially in reinforcing notions of hereditary superiority and inferiority (nobility of 'blood', 'breeding', etc). Ann Chance The Univerity of Western Australia achance@uniwa.uwa.edu.au ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 07:59:34 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0227 Re: About This List Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0227. Wednesday, 20 March 1996. (1) From: Richard Kincaid Date: Sunday, 17 Mar 1996 15:52:57 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0220 Re: About This List (2) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 15:38:41 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0223 Re: About This List (3) From: Peggy Galbraith Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 22:41:42 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0223 Re: About This List (4) From: A. E. B. Coldiron Date: Wednesday, 20 Mar 1996 07:34:54 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0223 Re: About This List (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Kincaid Date: Sunday, 17 Mar 1996 15:52:57 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0220 Re: About This List I have been a member of SHAKSPER for one month now and I have enjoyed most of the postings. From what I've observed, it doesn't seem that there are anymore stupid questions asked by non-intellectuals than there are excessive discussion on a topics (i.e., the Funeral Elegy) by scholars who seem more intent on showing themselves to be right than by enlightening anyone. But, if someone asks something inappropriate or beleaguers a point, I just say "yadayadayada" and press the delete. (try it, it works!). And what is a stupid question, if it is sincere? On a more philosophical note, I do have to ask: What good is knowledge if it is not to be shared, and who better to share it with than those less learned than yourself. It seems to me that "scholarly" discussion amongst ones peer is just a step above mental masturbation. Some of you write as though you are writing doctorate thesis. If that=92s the same tone you use with your students, I have to wonder if you're reaching them at all. I know some of you spend your day teaching Shakespeare to students who for the most part are only there for the credits, whereas all I have to do get on stage and make it real and vital to an audience weaned on sitcoms, sound bites and sensationalism, and maybe you don't want to have to deal with the less learned on your own time, and if that's the case than I can understand. But I'll bet that none of you who make a new group will leave this one. I don't want to be cut out of the loop. I enjoy the discussions, as dry as they might get ("yadayadayada" --delete), and I believe I and others like me bring something to the party, an open mind, a different perspective, an appreciation of His works as an expression of the human spirit that goes beyond the quantifying of feminine ending and the usage of "of". That's my thoughts, and if I've offended anyone, well, enjoy your list. Rick Kincaid (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 15:38:41 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0223 Re: About This List Dear Gabriel Egan, In response to your recent remarks: >Does anybody have a definition of a community with which they would like >to share their opinions which is not elitist? >That last is not a rhetorical question. I'd like to hear responses from >undergraduate subscribers to SHAKSPER (one of the groups I would >exclude) who wouldn't mind if school children joined in our discussions. Although I am not an undergraduate (I am currently finishing up an MFA in Directing) I would most certainly NOT mind it if school children joined in our discussions. On the contrary, I would find it refreshing and bewildiringly heartening to know there are school children out there who care. My teaching career has not yet been long and is far from being formidable, but at this early stage I still view education as a symbiosis. My desire to educate does not limit itself to whom I would care to educate; if through my theatre and teaching I can reach someone - anyone, then I have done a good thing. In the same way, I do not have any set rule about whom I may be educated by; it usually means that those who are older and wiser teach me, but I have been consistently surprised by the number of times I have learned something from those who are beneath me in the academic food chain. Sincerely, Shirley Kagan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peggy Galbraith Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 22:41:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0223 Re: About This List I just wanted to respond, belatedly, to Michael Saenger's post regarding undergraduates using this list in a manner which he termed "plagiarism," as well as to Gabriel Egan's more recent call for undergraduates who would like to hear from school children. I do not take objection to the splitting of SHAKSPER; if it does happen, I'll just subscribe to both and watch and enjoy quietly from the sidelines as I normally do with the single list we have now. However, I am disturbed by some of the comments which have surfaced in relationship to the proposed split. First, the unfounded accusation of plagairism. Last year, when I was working my term paper on Shakespeare's use of the dramatic metaphor, I twice used this list to ask questions of those who knew more about my topic, and scholarship on my topic, than I did. In my mind, this is what SHAKSPER, and education in general, should be about. In both instances, I received a great deal of assistance which I otherwise would not have been able to receive, and my paper, as well as my appreciation of Shakespeare, benifitted from this exchange. Virtually every undergrad I know would have been estactic to get such great help, and would have, as I did, CITED IT PROPERLY AND TAKEN EVERY CARE NOT TO COMMIT THE DREADED "P" WORD. Trust me, we're all neurotic enough to follow up on that kind of thing. Secondly, the implication that no one without a PhD and years of experience has ever had a new or exciting idea. I think that it is precisely BECAUSE many undergraduates (and yes, even lowly school children) aren't confined by traditional scholarship that they are in a wonderful position to make fresh insights into plays and sonnets which have been studied extensively for hundreds of years. If a sixth grader had an interpretation which I had never considered, I would welcome reading it on this list. I am still naive enough to believe that everyone has something to offer, and it is my firm belief that even the experts who subscribe to this list can benefit from an intelligent dialogue which includes "the rest of us." Sincerely, Peggy Galbraith Duke University Medieval and Renaissance Studies Class of 1998 (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: A. E. B. Coldiron Date: Wednesday, 20 Mar 1996 07:34:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0223 Re: About This List Dear Prof. Cook and fellow list-readers, I come to this discussion a little late, so I'll ask that this not be posted if it repeats what has already been said here. I understand and share a desire for academically informative talk on this list. I also understand the nonspecialist's desire to have Shakespeare as a "hobby." But it seems to me we academics have here a rare opportunity. Instead of being perceived and stereotyped as ivory-tower-bound, overly-theorized, anti-civilisation, post-rational, elitist, geekish, or otherwise irrelevant to our culture, we can in such a forum show ourselves capable of meaningful discourses with a wider public. Recent efforts to shrink academic budgets have sometimes used such stereotypes as justification (well, maybe not the "geek" stereotype); here's a place we can show that our arcana are not only that, that our work has value in the world of 1996, that no one need de-fund us on the grounds of perceived irrelevancy (or worse). That is--if we can explain ourselves in such a way that specialists will find our talk illuminating while non-specialists will find it interesting. I think we can do that, and everyone will win. (We can always delete messages or threads we don't want to read--thanks to Hardy Cook's good work.) A. Coldiron University of Virginia ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 08:17:42 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0228 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0228. Wednesday, 20 March 1996. (1) From: David Evett Date: Saturday, 16 March 1996 5:17pm ET Subj: SHK 7.0214 Re: Funeral Elegy (a (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 17 Mar 1996 17:38:37 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0214 Re: Funeral Elegy (and Sonnets) (3) From: Joseph M Green Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 16:57:30 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0222 Re: Funeral Elegy (4) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 17:52:06 -0800 Subj: Funeral Elegy (5) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 22:23:01 -0800 Subj: Dr. Dodypoll (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Saturday, 16 March 1996 5:17pm ET Subject: SHK 7.0214 Re: Funeral Elegy (a Is the matter of while/whiles/whilst/whilest a potential authorial signature, or is the record too contaminated by scribal and compositorial variation to be useful in this connection? I note that all 4 variants are monosyllabic, so the choice has no metrical significance; the additional consonants would affect the flow of the sound a bit. At a quick glance, I can't discern any obvious patterns, such as the use of one or another form before a word starting with a consonant (though all 11 of the instances of whilest in Spevack precede pronominal forms). As so often, a few minutes with the concordance and the complexities begin to multiply; for example Spevack does not discriminate between "while" by itself, "a while," and "the while," and lists "awhile" as a separate form. Nor does Spevak more generally try to discriminate among substantive, adverbial, and conjunctive uses. Tracing the relationships among these forms and trying to sort out the effects of regional and social variations would be an onerous task. All these complexities help explain why the spellings in and of themselves won't do the kind of work Richard J. Kennedy puts them to. Just whiling (whilesing, whilsting, whilesting) away the time, Dave Evett (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 17 Mar 1996 17:38:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0214 Re: Funeral Elegy (and Sonnets) Regarding "whiles," Don Foster sends me the following which supplements my former posting: "Note that "whiles" appears in all or most of those texts that are thought to have been prepared from Shakespeare's own papers--and in the only extant MS in Shakespeare's own hand (Hand D, STM), neither *while* nor *whilest* nor *whilst* appears--only *whiles*." Spevack does note the *Sir Thomas More* line: "whiles they are o'er the bank of their obedience." So Don hints that Shakespeare may have preferred "whiles" in his manuscripts, a usage modernized by scribes and compositors. And all the evidence seems to suggest that this modernization process was not unusual in sixteenth and seventeenth century England. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 16:57:30 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0222 Re: Funeral Elegy I hope that I am not the first to point out that the elegy is obviously a forgery committed by the Dark Lady of the Sonnets that was understood by its understanders as Shakespeare's lament over his failed sexual powers. The title gives it away and the Dark Lady would be just cunning enough to have this forgery printed. Life ran high in those days. And, although I feel that Richard Kennedy's poem is vastly superior to the elegy and that the only way Shakespeare could have written the elegy is to have initiated a new type of "plain style" which required writing as if you had recently suffered a cerebral accident, I must side with those who attribute that poem to Will because I have just learned that Stephen Greenblatt himself (so careful of the type) will include it in the NORTON. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 17:52:06 -0800 Subject: Funeral Elegy In comparing the Funeral Elegy with the first 578 lines of the Sonnets, I noticed that Shakespeare only twice began a line with "of". W.S. did it 30 times. Don Foster answered (13 March) that this difference is because the Elegy is highly enjambed, many more lines carried over than is normal for Shakespeare. I understand. A line carried over must begin with > something<, and most often a little word serves. And so, says Foster, that explains this huge difference -- Elegy 30, Sonnets 2. I also noticed that the word "and" was skewed in its use It's another of those little words that help to carry over a line. According to Foster's theory, the Elegy should use "and" to initiate a carry over line considerably more often than Shakespeare, such as the case for "of". But it doesn't. The Elegy only uses "and" in this place 28 times, and the Sonnets 66. That's retrograde to Foster's argument. Foster's rule of enjambment holds up for "of", but fails for "and" in comparison with the first 578 lines of the Sonnets. The outcome seems to be that the unknown W.S. was fond of carrying over a line with "in", but Shakespeare shunned that word, favoring "and" for the use. The Funeral Elegy and the Sonnets are parted by several other stylistic differences as well, which have been noticed but not explained. For example, why such a great difference between the use of 4 syllable words? Elegy 75, Sonnets (first 578 lines) 15. That seems an excellent word-print. I might add to that: 4 syllable words Funeral Elegy 578 lines. 75 Venus and Adonis 578 lines 11 The Rape of Lucrece 578 lines 19 The LAST 578 lines of the Sonnets 14 (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 22:23:01 -0800 Subject: Dr. Dodypoll Sydney Kasten brings up a good point about The Wisdome of Doctor Dodypoll. It's anonymous and I say it's very like Shakespeare. I agree with Kasten that we've got to be very careful when we're examining Elizabethan poetry and plays. Ben Jonson thought so, too. He prefaced the quarto edition of The Alchemist with this: "TO THE READER -- if thou beest more, thou art an understander, and then I trust thee. If thou art one that tak'st up, and but a pretender, beware at what hands thou receiv'st thy commodity's, for thou wert never more fair in the way to be coz'ned than in this age of poetry, especially in plays...." That's either a warning not to meddle too much, or an invitation to a masquerade party. Doctor Dodypoll is one of the literary puzzles quite common back then. Evidently it played well. I say it's Shakespeare. Please answer personal if someone would be willing to type it up, possibly we could post it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 08:24:06 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0229 Re: Physical Size of Elizabethans Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0229. Wednesday, 20 March 1996. (1) From: Florence Amit Date: Monday, 18 Mar 1996 01:06:04 +0200 Subj: Re: Size of Elizabethans (2) From: Andrew Gurr Date: Monday, 18 Mar 1996 10:12:07 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0210 Q: Physical Size of Elizabethans (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Florence Amit Date: Monday, 18 Mar 1996 01:06:04 +0200 Subject: Re: Size of Elizabethans > I'd therefore expect average stature to have generally increased >with wealth/social status, and would be interested to know of any evidence, >literary or otherwise, that this was so. To Ann Chance: Isn't also the amount of calcium in the diet crucial? And what about wet nurses who had few children vs. aristocratic ladies who had too many births? One would suppose that the yoeman's child has the advantage here. Florence Amit (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Gurr Date: Monday, 18 Mar 1996 10:12:07 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0210 Q: Physical Size of Elizabethans Measurements of skeletons give the average size of Tudor figures as 10% less than the modern (western) average. But there are anomalies -- the Tudor seamen on the Mary Rose when raised in 1984 turned out to be about the modern average. Whether they benefitted from a better diet (the main cause of size difference, allowing for a potato-free diet before 1600) in royal employ, or whether Henry VIII wanted big men on his ship, we don't know. Andrew Gurr ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 08:36:32 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0230 Re: R3; Character; Future; Film Course Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0230. Wednesday, 20 March 1996. (1) From: Fran Teague Date: Monday, 18 Mar 96 09:46:15 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0224 Re: *R3* Spinoffs (2) From: Joseph M Green Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 16:42:44 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0153 Re: Characters (3) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 20:47:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0226 Re: The Future (4) From: Susanne Collier Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 18:34:46 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0218 Qs: Film Course (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Monday, 18 Mar 96 09:46:15 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0224 Re: *R3* Spinoffs Two films that use R3: The Goodbye Girl and Theatre of Blood. In the former, there is mockery of a production that presents R3 as gay; the second uses Shn. references as the base for a serious of ghoulish murders and features an over-the-top Vincent Price. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 16:42:44 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0153 Re: Characters John Drakakis writes that the idea of "character" is an anachronism and interferes with the real work of assessing Shakespeare's representations in terms of, among other considerations?, ideology. But if the concept of character is anchronistic, so is the concept of ideology -- unless "ideology" has assumed the status of a universal. If Shakespeare's representations cannot be said to be characters, then they cannot be said to be the product of ideologies. One follows the reasoning of T. Hawkes here -- by which it has been demonstrated that Shakespeare could not have written "literature" because it wasn't invented yet. By the same reasoning one is excited to realize that Shakespeare did not breath oxygen before it was named and that no-one before the date given for the first use of "boredom" in the OED possibly have been bored. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 20:47:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0226 Re: The Future The Future of English Harry Hill; I agree that in teaching Shakespeare, and all literature, more time should be spent reading and discussing the material and less in purveying theories of various sorts. Far less lit crit, far more lit. Stephanie Hughes (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susanne Collier Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 18:34:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0218 Qs: Film Course Methodology in constructing Shakespeare on Film courses: Dave Evitt: I, too, teach at a commuter school, one which still evinces pockets of post-earthquake stress syndrome, and have started to create a Shakespeare on Film course in two different ways. I have not yet developed a completely satisfactory mechanism but can offer a couple of caveats. 1. Watch the whole of an assigned video together in class because even if the films are widely available (e.g. Mel Gibson as Hamlet), students cannot be counted on to watch them on time. Also, availability of soi-disant classic video stores (or subsections of stores) varies widely even in this, the US movie capital, creating a class-room culture of the elite students who live/work near the useful rental stores and the others who don't. 2. Don't depend, unless you have a hold of blackmail proportions over your library's media sector, on any out of class-room arrangements even if you can be there in person, for me this has always ended in the proverbial tears. After two tries and extensive student feedback I have resolved to choose fewer Shakespeare plays; select the most obscure film versions to show in class and assign to individuals or groups of two/three the more recent/generally available videos for class presentations; offer incentives or structure the final paper to allow for the unearthing of rare/ unconventional versions of a play. I shall certainly teach it again because it is, quite frankly, the most fun I've had recently teaching a senior semiar. The students love the course; I have been considerably over-subscribed both times and I still get requests to teach it again. Happy Viewing! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 08:41:23 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0231 ACTER Homepage; Shakespeare's Vocabulary Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0231. Wednesday, 20 March 1996. (1) From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 06:10:41 -0500 (EST) Subj: ACTER Homepage (2) From: Dom Saliani Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 13:01:30 -0700 (MST) Subj: Shakespeare's Vocabulary (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 06:10:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: ACTER Homepage ACTER has a homepage at the following address: http://www.und.edu/depts/acter Those of you attending the ISA April 7-14 in Los Angeles might be interested to read about the actors and the production, which will be at 8 p.m. in the Biltmore Bowl at the hotel on Monday, April 8th. The actors will also do a performance workshop on Tuesday and Gareth Armstrong will do his one-man show, Hand in Hand to Hell (Richard III and Macbeth) at 4 on Tuesday. We also have pictures of the production and the actors. SAA members will receive our new brochure before the conference, and I look forward to meeting you at the ACTER table in the exhibition area, where our new video will be showing. Reservations for the 1997-98 tours will begin on May lst, but there may be a few openings left for 1996-97 (Much Ado and Romeo and Juliet). ACTER will also be performing in the L.A. area for the two weeks preceding the ISA, at Mount St. Mary's College and Santa Monica College; contact me for information on performance times. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dom Saliani Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1996 13:01:30 -0700 (MST) Subject: Shakespeare's Vocabulary Please help! Once and for all I would like to settle in my mind what Shakespeare's vocabulary and contributions to the English language were. I have run across a number of conflicting opinions on the matter. Shakespeare's vocabulary is given as anything from 17,000 words to 26,000 words. As to the number of words Shakespeare has been credited as being the first user, the numbers range from 1,700 to 9,000. Can anyone shed some light on the matter? Any good references I can consult on the issue? Dom Saliani Calgary, Alberta========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 12:32:57 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0232 Re: Shakespeare's Vocabulary Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0232. Thursday, 21 March 1996. (1) From: James Schaefer Date: Wednesday, 20 Mar 1996 11:53:24 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shakespeare's Vocabulary (2) From: Nora Kreimer Date: Wednesday, 20 Mar 1996 18:51:10 ARG Subj: Re: SHK 7.0231 Shakespeare's Vocabulary (3) From: John Velz Date: Wednesday, 20 Mar 1996 19:45:32 +0200 Subj: Shakespeare's Vocabulary (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Wednesday, 20 Mar 1996 11:53:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare's Vocabulary Dom Saliani asks about Shakespeare's vocabularly, including his record of first known uses of words. Perhaps others on this list subscribe to the periodic emailings (is that a word? is this a first use?) from the Oxford University Press editors who are working on the next edition of the OED. I've deleted the last one, but I think it was there that I read of the recent discovery of many printed first-uses older than the previous attributions to Shakespeare. Perhaps others with better memories or less active delete keys (and larger hard drives) than I could add specifics. Jim Schaefer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nora Kreimer Date: Wednesday, 20 Mar 1996 18:51:10 ARG Subject: Re: SHK 7.0231 Shakespeare's Vocabulary In McCrum, Robert, Cran, William, amd Robert MacNeil's THE STORY OF ENGLISH --A COMPANION TO THE PBS TELEVISION SERIES , 1986, Elizabeth Sifton Books, Viking,there's a very interesting chapter on Shakespeare's language. The presence od Dr. Randolph Quirk as a general consultant is a source of confidence to the academic world. Chapter 3 "A Muse of Fire" deals with the linguistic development of the Elizabethan age. The authors set the number of Shakespeare's active vocabulary at 30,000. Examples of coinages by Shakespeare abound. I would recommend the reading of this most attractive book! Hope I've been of help, Nora Kreimer (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Wednesday, 20 Mar 1996 19:45:32 +0200 Subject: Shakespeare's Vocabulary In reply to Dom Saliani (March 19th) The total vocabulary of Shakespeare is likely to be closer to 17,000 words than to 26,000. Something just over the former figure is Joseph T. Shipley's estimate in *In Praise of English: The Growth and Use of Language* N.Y. 1977. The research of J=FCrgen Sch=E4fer and Bryan Garner would support Shipley. Sch=E4fer's work is easy to find. Garner's is not. Two chapters of the honors thesis Garner submitted at the University of Texas in 1980 have appeared in print (I can dig up the bibliographical references for anyone who wants them). The thesis, "Shakespeare's Latinate Diction", is the best study of that dimension of Shakespeare's vocabulary that has yet been done. Garner's "Tentative List" of Shakespeare's neologisms from Latin contains 625 items, but he emphasizes that this is suggestive, not definitive, indeed it is an enlargement of his original appendix in the thesis. Where did the 26,000 figure come from? I would be interested to know. Scholars probing Shakespeare's vocabulary over the years differ radically with one another on some other points, as well, e.g. the number of noncewords in Shakespeare; the number of neologisms; the number of latinate words, etc. Wordcounting is a hard task, but one would think that we could easily enough establish definite facts in such matters, especially in the age of the computer. John Velz ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 12:36:47 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0233 Re: About This List Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0233. Thursday, 21 March 1996. (1) From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 20 Mar 1996 22:55:51 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0227 Re: About This List (2) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 21 Mar 96 09:28:06 -0600 Subj: about this list/Barton videos (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 20 Mar 1996 22:55:51 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0227 Re: About This List Schoolchildren on this list? I would think that most people might find it interesting and perhaps entertaining to hear what my 7-year-old son thought about his character of Mamillius and indeed about the whole world of *WT*. He picked up far more than I would have thought possible, and in fact remembered lines from scenes that he had the opportunity to see only two or three times. His thoughts on theatre and acting in general? "It's like there's a wall there, and on the other side is a big, black universe." ...which is, I believe, far more pertinent to discussion about Shakespeare than many academic arguments I have read. Let's not be snobs. Dale (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 21 Mar 96 09:28:06 -0600 Subject: about this list/Barton videos In response to Gabriel Egan's request that members of SHAKSPER express their opinions about list membership: I believe that we should welcome anyone who loves Shakespeare and is interested in his work, regardless of academic status, age, professsion, etc. My training is in literature, I teach Shakespeare (occasionally), I see the plays whenever I can and am most interested in them as _plays_ (while still finding some of the contemporary theoretical arguments interesting, if not always enlightening). I spent a month last summer working with professional theater people in a workshop at Shakespeare and Company and gained a much deeper appreciation for the work that actors and directors and technical theater folks do in order to produce the plays. I'm part of a group that gets together monthly to read the plays aloud--I'm the only academic currently participating, but everyone is committed and enthusiastic: the participants range in age from 13 to 50 (anyone else on this list who lives in the Minneapolis-St Paul area is invited to join us: just e-mail me!). What continues to make this list interesting to me is the range and variety of contributions and I would like to see that continue. On another issue, I just wanted to mention that I have been screening the series of "Playing Shakespeare" videos produced in Britain with the RSC (Trevor Nunn hosts the first two, John Barton the rest; there are a total of 11 50-minute tapes). I had seen snippets of these before, but never the whole set. They are remarkable, and provide some of the most intelligent discussion/ performance of Shakespeare's texts that I have seen. I recommend them enthusiastically. Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 12:41:12 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0234 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0234. Thursday, 21 March 1996. (1) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 20 Mar 1996 17:14:06 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0228 Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 21 Mar 1996 09:30:24 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0211 Re: Funeral Elegy (and Sonnets) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 20 Mar 1996 17:14:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0228 Re: Funeral Elegy Dave Evett; While variations in spelling due to the varying styles of editors and compositors certainly render it impossible to BASE an argument on such factors, certainly they can enhance or detract from an argument based on more solid evidence. Since the main evidence against Funeral Elegy however, its extremely poor quality in an artistic sense, doesn't phase the Elegyites one whit, perhaps Mr. Kennedy is turning to an area that they do seem to take seriously, word usage. It is noble of Mr. Kennedy to beat his metaphoric head against the stone wall of poor taste, but luckily those readers of Shakespeare, so many in every generation for four hundred years, that have taken his language for their own and made the English language the great language of literature that it is, will regard this controversy as a tempest in a teapot, and if they ever do happen to see a copy of the poem, will toss it aside after ten lines with a well-deserved yawn. It isn't Shakespeare who's in trouble here, it's his so-called "experts." Stephanie Hughes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 21 Mar 1996 09:30:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0211 Re: Funeral Elegy (and Sonnets) Brian Vickers in "Whose thumbprints?" TLS, 8 March 1996, 16-18, argues against the ascription of FE to Shakespeare. He finds the poem's piety very un-Shakespearean, and he believes the phrase "My countries thankless misconstruction" can "only refer to some government appointment, such as an embassy abroad or a military commission" (16) -- something not relevant to Shakespeare. He also finds Rick Abrams' solution to the problem of the poet's being a young man "forced." And he puts forth his own solution. Indeed Vickers suggests that Simon Wastell is our man! The initials have been inverted -- as they often were. Apparently Wastell did use FE in writing his *Funeral Elegy* to Baron Spencer in 1627, and both funeral elegies use (or misuse!) Daniel's elegy on the Earl of Devonshire (1606). Don Foster has already rejected Wastell's candidacy, but Vickers "why not?" (17), and gives a rather spirited defense of Simon's qualifications. Maybe I shouldn't give up on Warner South? I ask whimsically. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 11:38:49 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0235 Administrivia Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0235. Monday, 25 March 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Monday, March 25, 1996 Subject: Administrivia Dear SHAKSPEReans, First, let me apologize for an unexpected disruption in service. On Friday, the machine on which LISTERV resides had a "device full" error. The Unix guru was on a well-deserved, spring-break vacation and the backup person was unable to resolve the problem, so we were down until today and any request sent to LISTSERV or SHAKSPER would have generated an "unknown mailer error 202" message. If you received one of these messages, whatever request or message you sent was not processed. Second, I will be attending the World Shakespeare Conference in Los Angeles from April 8 through April 14. If there is a SHAKSPERean in the Los Angeles area who could arrange with his or her institution a guest account for me for these days, would you please contact me. If I am unable to obtain a guest account for the week, SHAKSPER will be down during this time. Hardy Cook Editor ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 11:50:55 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0236 Re: Shakespeare's Vocabulary and OED Newsletter Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0236. Monday, 25 March 1996. (1) From: Ian Lancashire Date: Thursday, 21 Mar 1996 14:58:18 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0232 Re: Shakespeare's Vocabulary (2) From: Ron Macdonald Date: Thursday, 21 Mar 1996 17:52:25 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shakespeare's Vocabulary (3) From: David Evett Date: Friday, 22 Mar 96 10:30:25 EST Subj: Shakespeare's Vocabulary (4) From: James Schaefer Date: Sunday, 24 Mar 1996 21:43:48 -0500 (EST) Subj: OED Newsletter (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian Lancashire Date: Thursday, 21 Mar 1996 14:58:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0232 Re: Shakespeare's Vocabulary Marvin Spevack's The Harvard Concordance to Shakespeare has 29,066 different spellings. This number can't be equated with Shakespeare's vocabulary because Spevack lists orthographic forms, not dictionary headwords. For instance, there are separate entries for "/couch", "couch", and "couches". On the other hand, Spevack also identifies 700 forms that are homographs, i.e., that each have more than one sense. Computer programs such as Spevack uses cannot in themselves estimate vocabulary size. Texts first have to be lemmatized (reduced to a sequence of dictionary headwords) before a count is attempted; and lemmatization is no science. A Shakespeare thesaurus might provide a better guessimate. However sizeable a vocabulary Shakespeare had, it was astonishingly large. Keep in mind that he worked without benefit of an English dictionary or other artificial memory enhancements we take for granted. No one should compare the size of Shakespeare's vocabulary with that of later writers without taking into account the impoverished state of linguistic knowledge (about English) that characterized the decades in which he wrote. Reference books for English did not exist. It's of course possible that writers like Holinshead, Chapman, and Burton used more different words. A concordance of different orthographic forms in The Anatomy of Melancholy, say, would make a useful point of comparison to Spevack's figures. Ian Lancashire Department of English, New College University of Toronto (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Macdonald Date: Thursday, 21 Mar 1996 17:52:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare's Vocabulary John Velz observes that "Wordcounting is a hard task, but one would think that we could easily enough establish definite facts in such matters, especially in the age of the computer." But before you can count words, you have to decide what counts as a word, or, as Aristotle might have said (and perhaps did say), if you ask me how many things, I first have to ask what kind of things you mean. Nora Kreimer cites the 30,000-word estimate of Shakespeare's vocabulary in _The Story of English_, a figure based, according to David Crystal in _The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language_, on Martin Spevack's _Complete and Systematic Concordance to the Works of Shakespeare. Spevack lists 29,066 different words out of 884,647 words in all. But one arrives at the former figure by counting, for instance, "goes," "going," and "gone" as separate words. If one limits the count to so-called "lexemes," however, thereby subsuming the preceding items under the single headword "go," one reduces the figure, according to Crystal, to something under 20,000 words. And the problems proliferate. Shakespeare was, for instance, an inveterate user (and coiner) of "tosspots," nouns formed by compounding (as in the eponymous example from _Twelfth Night_) a transitive verb with a direct object, e.g., killjoy, turnkey, lickspittle. Two magnificent examples (probably coinages) from _Love's Labor's Lost_: "pleaseman," meaning a sycophant, and "mumblenews," meaning a rumor-monger. Should these count as separate lexical items or be subsumed under their otherwise occurring components? --Ron Macdonald (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 22 Mar 96 10:30:25 EST Subject: Shakespeare's Vocabulary I am surprised that a scholar as experienced as John Velz should be persuaded that we can readily come to "hard facts" about the extent and characteristics of the Shakespearean vocabulary. Some of the difficulties are morphological: does the set show-shows-showest- showed-shown-showing comprise one word or six? Some of them are phonetic/orthographic: are show'st-showest, shewed-showed, murther-murder, singles or pairs? Some of them are grammatical: we've been considering the set while-whiles-whilst- whilest this week--is that one word spelled (or spelt, not to be confused with a kind of grain) four ways or three words (noun, adverb, conjunction) subject to some orthographical overlapping? Labelling is tricky: at what point do/did "hopefully" in its most familiar current use, or "quote" as a noun, stop being barbarisms and become accepted? When did "tort" cross over from legal French to legal English? Is "peace", from Latin _pax_ by way of Old French _pais_, for which the earliest OED citation is dated 1154, Latinate in the same way as "incarnadine"? Dating is tricky, too: under the concept of first published record, consider "gimmers" (1H6 1.2.41), identified by OED and the Arden as a corruption of "gimmals" (although the earliest citation for the latter form, in Gosson's _Trumpet of War_, 1598, is later than the earliest for the former; it appears as "gimmaled" in H5 4.2.38 and "gymould" in E3 1.2.29). At any rate, OED dates the 1H6 citation as 1591 though it did not appear in print until the Folio of 1623. And so is attribution: do we count as Shakespeare's words from parts of the text now often attributed to Fletcher or Middleton? How do we distinguish between authorial and editorial and compositorial variations--cf. Bill Godshalk's posting on the forms of "while". Computers can help with all this, but the fact is that a great deal of patient, informed, knowledgeable, thoughtful human decision- making must still take place at the input end, and now matter how well the work is done there will remain a good many disputable issues and instances. And that being the case, one may well ask whether trying to get firm answers to questions about Shakespeare's record as a lexical innovator or the true extent of his working vocabulary is worth the trouble. Wordily, Dave Evett (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Sunday, 24 Mar 1996 21:43:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: OED Newsletter I have been asked to provide more information about the OED Newsletter that I mentioned in an earlier posting. All three issues of the newsletter published so far can be found at the following World Wide Web address: http://www1.oup.co.uk/cite/oup/ar/oed/newoed/ One issue does talk about new first citations, but does NOT claim to have found any -- yet -- older than currently accepted Shakespearean firsts. But they do seem to be running some sort of contest ... Jim Schaefer ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 12:00:13 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0237 Re: Funeral Elegy, Hamlet, and Spevack's Concordance Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0237. Monday, 25 March 1996. (1) From: Michael Sharpston Date: Thursday, 21 Mar 1996 13:24:30 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Funeral Elegy (2) From: Nick Clary Date: Friday, 22 Mar 1996 11:38:47 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Funeral Elegy, Hamlet, and Spevack's Concordance (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Sharpston Date: Thursday, 21 Mar 1996 13:24:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Funeral Elegy I have been lurking during the Funeral Elegy discussions. There are angles to do with printers, publishers etc., but a significant combat seems to be Shaxicon versus The Aesthetes. We shall be back there in a moment, but first I need a paragraph in 1996 Philadelphia. As I read about Shaxicon etc, in the back of my mind was Kasparov versus Deep Blue, where I was lucky enough to be able to attend one game, and subsequently hear from both Kasparov and Deep Blue's human 'minders'. It was Man versus Machine -- or was it? Grandmasters had helped program Deep Blue, and Kasparov made use of computerized databases in his preparation and training. The IBM people were quite annoyed when I asked whether Deep Blue thought about positional considerations: of course they had tried to program for that, but how did you specify the finer points?... We were into what the Swedish call "tacit knowledge" -- what you know but cannot express how you know. That, and apparently superior complex learning ability in Kasparov as against Deep Blue, probably explain why Kasparov was pulling away from Deep Blue at the end of the series of games, as against his nasty surprise at the beginning. Why Deep Blue could take on arguably the best chess player ever, and initially win, is probably explained by the narrow and explicit 'domain', chess, with its very explicit rules and scoring system. Poetry seems a good deal about intuition, and the domain is much less heavily structured and closely confined than chess. I love Richard Kennedy's February 13 piece on the comparative aesthetic qualities of W.S. versus Name Players. The only thing I objected to there was the idea that Shakespeare would write (dare I say it?) 'mechanical' verse in his sleep, when we all tend to do rather creative elisions of the links between reality and symbol. At the same time, I do feel some need to defend (a) the quantitative approach (b) poor old Shaxicon. The quantitative approach was going strong, of course, long before computers made it easier (too easy??). From the Preface, written in 1905, of the Oxford Clarendon, "M. Tulli Ciceronis orationes, Pro Sex. Roscio etc." (with many subsequent reprints), we have 'Albertus Curtis Clark' writing "Inventus est Thaddaeus Zielinksi, vir acutissims et ferrea quadam patientia praeditus, qui, omnibus clausulis quotquot in orationibus inveniuntur numeratis et digestis, doceret..." Briefly, with his 'iron' patience he went over every single sentence ending in Cicero to work out which was the preferred 'blank verse' pattern, troche, dactyl or whatever (he found more diversity than some people expected).... Moving back to the computer age, I know I would rather (if in fact innocent) face a computer check of my finger-prints than someone's intuitive impressions. People can be all too impressionable at line-ups, and 'recognize' the person they in some sense 'should'...with the possible result of wrongful imprisonment, at least until DNA comes to the rescue. All the discussions of the meaning of feminine endings, and in what exact context, seem to me most appropriate; but perhaps we also need a broader structure for determining the appropriate role for both Shaxicon AND The Aesthetes, and a more integrative approach to the use of both qualitative and quantitative information. Humbly, Michael Sharpston msharpston@worldbank.org (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Clary Date: Friday, 22 Mar 1996 11:38:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Funeral Elegy, Hamlet, and Spevack's Concordance While collating *Hamlet*, I did a quick check and discovered a number of curiosities. "While" appears 16 times in both Q2 and F1. "While" also appears in three Q2-only lines, and once more in a place where F1 has "whiles." "Whiles" appears once in both Q2 and F1, once in Q2 only, and once in F1 only. "Whilst" appears twice in both Q2 and F1. "Whil'st" once in both. Q2 also has "whiles" where F1 has "while." And then there's the odd few instances: Q2 has "whiles" and F1 has "whiles like," Q2 has "awhile" and F1 has "aside," and in one case Q2 has "whiles," F1 has "whil'st," and F2-F4 have "whilst." Spevack's Concordance, as the editor notes, "utilizes the modern-spelling text of *The Riverside Shakespeare*, published by Houghton Mifflin Company in 1974." While Spevack asserts that this edition exemplifies "the latest thinking on what may be called the `true text' of Shakespeare," the reliability of the Concordance's counts is anchored in a conflated. This edition, unlike a variorum edition, not only uses modern-spellings but chooses between variants when Q2 and F1 deviate from one another. Only the chosen variant can be counted. In this Concordance there are 19 entries for "while" in *Hamlet*. There are 3 entries for "whiles" and 3 for "whilst." These counts might differ from mine, based on the cursory check above. The Bertram/Kliman *Three-Text Hamlet* illuminates such nuances, as the Riverside and other editions with textual notes do not. By providing complete parallel tests of Q1, Q2, and F1, such editions as this one cause this reader to wonder about the reliability of authorial determination based on comparison that are dependent on the counting of specifics. Someone as already made the point about compositorial errors. There is, of course, more to consider. Nick Clary ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 18:14:42 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0238 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0238. Tuesday, 26 March 1996. (1) From: Jim Helfers Date: Monday, 25 Mar 1996 14:07:31 -0700 (MST) Subj: The Funeral Elegy (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 25 Mar 1996 11:54:27 -0800 Subj: Re: Funeral Elegy (3) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Tuesday, 26 Mar 1996 13:01:05 -0600 (CST) Subj: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Helfers Date: Monday, 25 Mar 1996 14:07:31 -0700 (MST) Subject: The Funeral Elegy I've been following with interest the ongoing discussion concerning _The Funeral Elegy_. Although I begin to believe that whatever else needs to be said should be said in careful scholarly studies, I have my crumb to add to the discussion. I especially find interesting Professors Kennedy and Godshalk's comments on stylistic questions, specifically the general quantification of function words and feminine line endings. Having just waded painfully through the swamp of stylometry for a presentation, however, I'd like to inject a cautionary note concerning modes of proof which use quantitative study (statistical descriptions of linguistic items and patterns in texts). First a bit of background. In 1978, Andrew Q. Morton, a classical and biblical scholar, published the book _Literary Detection: How to prove authorship and fraud in literature and documents_. In it he proposed a new approach to studies of attribution. Instead of examining texts for special terms and deducing authorship from their use, as has been done in biblical studies since the nineteenth century (and which Donald Foster is doing with SHAXICON, in part), Morton asserted that the statistical description of universally occurring characteristics of text (such as sentence length, or the rate of occurrence and collocation of syntactic function words like articles, conjunctions and prepositions) would show patterns of usage which would be unique to a particular author. One would, theoretically, using multiple samples of different function words or collocations of words, be able to come up with a unique statistical description of a given author's style, using such statistical measures as mean, median, mode, standard deviation, and other calculations. One needs statistical measures to assure that differences between samples result from something other than random variation. This theory is immediately attractive. It indicates that one could identify unique features of styles in the same way that one distinguishes fingerprints, by looking for discrete patterns at particular points. Unfortunately, a number of scholars, notably M. W. A. Smith and Barbara Stevenson (Smith, _Language and The Law_ 374-413, Stevenson, _Literary Computing and Literary Criticism_ 61-74), have pointed out grave difficulties with Morton's methodology and reporting. Their critiques center on three areas: Morton's initial framing of his hypotheses, his questionable assumptions, and his handling and analysis of the data. Among the several assumptions they question, the most important involves Morton's methodology. Morton uses statistical tools which assume the independence of the variables that they statistically graph. The linguistic elements that Morton graphs are not, in fact, independent of each other. A question arises: Is Morton's stylometric method a valid way to analyze texts, in light of Smith's and Stevenson's criticisms? Morton himself has proposed several modifications of his procedures, but his new methodologies seem to be under attack for the same reasons as his original ones (Smith (1994) 412-413). However, both Stevenson and Smith set out further parameters which could conceivably validate stylometry. Stevenson suggests a simulation study, specifically, resampling. However, this resampling "requires hundreds of complicated chi-square manipulations, not just one simple test" (Stevenson 71). Smith suggests a revised frequency test, in which certain words are chosen for analysis based both on their syntactic function and their frequency of occurrence in authors' texts. The sampled words and collocations are then manipulated in a variety of complex ways, to achieve a valid result (411-12). This discussion probably, in Barbara Stevenson's words, "portrays perfectly the current status of computational stylistics: the experts cannot agree on the ways statistics should be adapted to literary criticism, and statistical novices are unable to understand the jargon of the experts" (61). In any case, stylometry is a method of adducing internal evidence, and internal evidence is only a single factor in an overall effort to identify an author. This effort is a complex one involving both internal and external evidence. It is also true that, for many reasons, some kind of stylometric analysis will remain a factor in overall efforts to identify authors of medieval and Renaissance texts. One of the most interesting recent projects, which makes use of both "traditional" stylometric methods and some new techniques is The Shakespeare Clinic, a project undertaken by undergraduates and professors since 1988 at the Claremont Colleges (Elliott, "Touchstone" 199). The project is unique in two ways: first, some of the major professorial contributors are not literary scholars. Second, Ward Elliott and Robert Valenza (two of the professorial leaders of the project) have pioneered a further refinement of statistical measurement for stylometric analysis, which they call modal analysis. Finding that another method the clinic used was strongly sensitive to genre, and required quite large sample sizes for statistical validity, Elliott and Valenza took a new tack. They used a technique called the Karhunen-Loeve transform (KLT) "to determine the principal modes by which an author deviates from his or her average usage of selected keywords. These modes do not directly represent keyword occurrences, but instead measure complex patterns of deviation from the average rates" ("Touchstone" 201). This they found to be an effective way to discriminate between the style of two compared poets. The preceding information impacts the _Elegy_ discussion in two ways: first, it strongly suggests that the simple comparison of word occurrence numbers, or even numbers of feminine-ending lines, is a potentially flawed way to argue for or against authorship. Second, it leads me to ask a question: Is any member of the Shakespeare Clinic out there? I'd be interested in reading the results of the Clinic's analysis of the _Funeral Elegy_, which, I hear, cast doubt on a Shakespearean authorship from a stylometric perspective. For anyone who is interested in stylometrics as a tool for resolving authorship disputes, I've appended a short list of references on stylometry in general, and Shakespearean stylometry in particular. Elliott, Ward E. Y. "Glass Houses and Glass Slippers: The Shakespeare Clinic and Its Critics." _The Shakespeare Newsletter_ 40.4 (1990 Winter): 59. Elliott, Ward E. Y. and Robert J. Valenza. "A Touchstone for the Bard." _Computers and the Humanities_ 25 (1991): 199-209. Elliott, Ward E. Y. and Robert J. Valenza. "Was the Earl of Oxford the True Shakespeare? A Computer-Aided Analysis." _Notes and Queries_ December 1991: 501-506. Foster, Donald W. _Elegy by W. S.: A Study in Attribution_. Newark: U of Delaware, 1989. _______________. "Reconstructing Shakespeare 1: The Roles that Shakespeare Performed." _The Shakespeare Newsletter_ 41.1-2 (1991 Spring/Summer): 16-17. _______________. "Reconstructing Shakespeare Part 2: The Sonnets." _The Shakespeare Newsletter_ 41.3 (1991 Fall): 26-27. _______________. "Reconstructing Shakespeare Part 3 of 3: New Directions in Textual Analysis and Stage History." _The Shakespeare Newsletter_ 41.4 (1991 Winter): 58-59. _______________. "Re: SHAXICON." The Shakespeare Electronic Conference (SHAKSPER@WS.BOWIESTATE.EDU) 6.0533 (Thursday 6 July 1995). _______________. "Re: SHK 6.0874, Re: Julius Caesar, Re: SHAXICON." The Shakespeare Electronic Conference (SHAKSPER@WS.BOWIESTATE.EDU) 6.0891 (Thursday 10 November 1995). _______________. "Stylometry and Quantitative Stylistic Analysis." The Shakespeare Electronic Conference (SHAKSPER@WS.BOWIESTATE.EDU) 7.0031 (Friday 12 January 1996). Morton, Andrew Q. _Literary Detection: How to prove authorship and fraud in literature and documents_. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1978. Smith, M. W. A. "Computers, Statistics and Disputed Authorship." In John Gibbons, ed. _Language and the Law_. London : Longman, 1994. 374-413. _______________. "Counting Wilkins In: Stylometry Reveals Who Wrote Acts I and II of 'Pericles.'" _The Shakespeare Newsletter_ 40.4 (1990 Winter): 60. _______________. "An Investigation of the Basis of Morton's Method for the Determination of Authorship." _Style_ 19.3 (1985 Fall): 341-368. _______________. "Stylometry: Will the Computer Finally End Authorship Controversies?" _The Shakespeare Newsletter_ 41.1-2 (1991 Spring/Summer): 14-17. Stevenson, Barbara. "Adapting Hypothesis Testing to a Literary Problem." In Rosanne G. Potter, ed. _Literary Computing and Literary Criticism: Theoretical and Practical Essays on Theme and Rhetoric_. Philadelphia : U of Pennsylvania P, 1989. 61-74. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 25 Mar 1996 11:54:27 -0800 Subject: Re: Funeral Elegy I have found that Doctor Dodypoll (1600) was printed in Robert Dodsley's "A select collection of Old English Plays", which was first published in 1744. A.H. Bullen edited a 4 vol. edition of Dodsley's selections, published in 1964. He has this to say of Dodypoll: "The writer, whoever he was, scatters his gold with a lavish hand. In the fine panegyric on painting, there is a freedom of fancy that lifts us into the higher regions of poetry..." However, Bullen finds that "In the conduct of the complicated plot no great dexterity is shown. There is a want of fusion and coherence." It's too true, the plot is difficult to follow, but that's very like Shakespeare. Bullen passes over this fault to recommend the poetry in the play. He directs us to a love scene, and says: "The beauty of that scene is beyond the reach of any ordinary poet. And what shall be said of that exquisite description of the cameo in ii,I?:" FLORES: See then (my Lord) this aggat that contains The image of that Goddesse and her sonne, Whom auncients held the Soveraignes of Love; See, naturally wrought out of the stone (Besides the perfect shape of every limme, Besides the wondrous life of her bright haire) A waving mantle of celestial blew Imbroydering it selfe with flaming Starres. ALBER: Most excellent: and see besides (my Lords) How Cupids wings do spring out of the stone As if they needed not the help of Art. Bullen comments: "Is there in the whole Greek Anthology anything so absolutely flawless?" But Bullen will not dare to say Dodypoll might have been written by Shakespeare. "As to the authorship of Dr. Dodypoll I am unable to form a conjecture." And so once again we are reminded to check a too hasty attribution of a poem or a play to Shakespeare, and I may well be wrong in thinking that Shakespeare wrote Doctor Dodypoll. No doubt it has been looked at many times since Dodsley's 1744 printing. No doubt many scholars have looked at the Funeral Elegy, enticed towards some great treasure by the W.S. initials. But the chances that Shakespeare wrote such poor poetry are small indeed. The chances are a good deal better that Shakespeare wrote those several beautiful passages in Dodypoll. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Tuesday, 26 Mar 1996 13:01:05 -0600 (CST) Subject: Funeral Elegy Re. 4-syllable words in FE: I get somewhat different numbers from R. Kennedy: he finds 75 four-syllable words in FE. I count 62. I can guess that he may have counted "oblivion", "experience", "melodious", as four-syllable words but they are here (and normally in Shakespeare) given three syllables. Also, he may have counted "contemplation" as four syllables but it is here (and usually is when in the last position in a verse line) a five-syllable word. But these possibilities don't account for the difference in our numbers. I do note one interesting thing: of the 62 four-syllable words in FE, 17 appear nowhere else in Shakespeare. I draw no inference...yet. Also, "thank" appears in FE as a noun. Odd. Shakespeare's standard works have 309 uses of the word, always as a verb. Perhaps this is a typographical error; might it be "thanks"? Onward. Roger Gross U. of Arkansas ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 18:19:04 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0239 Sabbatical Rental; Job Announcements Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0239. Tuesday, 26 March 1996. (1) From: Robin Farabaugh Date: Monday, 25 Mar 1996 14:50:08 -0500 Subj: Sabbatical Rental near Washington, D.C. (2) From: Judy Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 26 Mar 1996 09:32:01 AST Subj: Re: Job Announcements (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robin Farabaugh Date: Monday, 25 Mar 1996 14:50:08 -0500 Subject: Sabbatical Rental near Washington, D.C. I would like to post a message about a sabbatical rental. Our family-sized house, outside of Baltimore, Maryland and within 40 minutes drive (or drive plus easy train ride) of the Folger Shakespeare Library, is available next academic year (August 96-July 97), furnished (including a line for the Internet and a piano!).We are also 15 minutes from The Johns Hopkins University, and 10 minutes from Baltimore-Washington International airport. Not only would this make it convenient if one is planning to come with a family to the area to do research, but it gives one a ring-side seat for the 1997 SAA conference! If anyone is interested in more details, please reply privately. Thanks. Robin Farabaugh University of Maryland, Baltimore County rfarabau@umbc.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judy Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 26 Mar 1996 09:32:01 AST Subject: Re: Job Announcements St. Thomas University in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada has five positions in the English department for 1996-1997. One of these is in Shakespeare (Renaissance Literature). The complete advertisement follows: FACULTY POSITIONS IN ENGLISH St. Thomas University is a small undergraduate, liberal arts university where excellence in undergraduate teaching is an institutional priority. Although most positions are limited term, it is expected that in the next year a number of these will be re- advertised as tenure track. Applications are invited for the following positions which will all be staffed at the Assistant Professor level: DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH. One tenure-track position in Romantic Literature. Four ten-month, limited-term positions to be selected from the following areas or combination thereof: 1) Chaucer and the Medieval Period; 2) Renaissance Literature; 3) Seventeenth Century Literature; 4) Modern Drama; and 5) World Literature in English. A PhD or imminent completion is required for all positions. Each applicant is asked to submit a curriculum vitae, samples of scholarly work, evidence of teaching effectiveness (teaching portfolio preferred) and arrange to have three letters of reference sent to Prof. F. G. Burke, Chair, Dept. of English, St. Thomas University, Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 5G3. CLOSING DATE: APRIL 15 or when position is filled. Additional information on each of these positions may be obtained from the Chair. [nb. see also below.] In accordance with Canadian immigration requirements, this advertisement is directed to Canadian citizens and permanent residents. St. Thomas University is committed to employment equity for women, aboriginal persons, members of visible minority groups and persons with disabilities. ****************************************** Dick Kennedy and I will be at the Biltmore in LA from April 5-15, and can provide further information. Judy Kennedy St.Thomas University Fredericton, N.B., Canada Email JKENNEDY@StThomasU.ca ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 18:26:39 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0240 Re: RSC MND; The List; Dictionaries; ACTER Correction Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0240. Tuesday, 26 March 1996. (1) From: Richard Kincaid Date: Monday, 25 Mar 1996 17:39:34 Subj: RSC Midsummmer... (2) From: Jarrett Byrnes Date: Monday, 25 Mar 1996 18:28:59 -0500 Subj: Re: About the list (3) From: Nora Kreimer Date: Monday, 25 Mar 1996 20:22:51 ARG Subj: Re: SHK 7.0236 Re: Shakespeare's Vocabulary and OED Newsletter (4) From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Tuesday, 26 Mar 1996 06:20:15 -0500 (EST) Subj: Correction for ACTER homepage address (fwd) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Kincaid Date: Monday, 25 Mar 1996 17:39:34 Subject: RSC Midsummmer... For those of you in the NYC area: If you have the chance to see the RSC's A Midsummer Night's Dream at the Lunt Fontane please do so. The production was imaginative, sensual and humorous, the acting dead on. I thoroughly enjoyed it, which was more than I expected, having seen it and done too many times myself. And though it does capture the sensuality of the fairies and the lovers, it isn't so overt that you'll be answering uncomfortable questions from your children on the way home from the theater. Cheers, Rick Kincaid (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jarrett Byrnes Date: Monday, 25 Mar 1996 18:28:59 -0500 Subject: Re: About the list In response to what Shirley Kagan said- hi! I'm a High School Junior with a deep interest in Shakespeare, and have been joyously following the postings in this list for the past several months. Please, keep on with the discussion- I'm listening. BTW: If anyone has any interesting comments about Comedy of Errors, please send them to me. I'm about to start rehearsing for a production next week. Thanks, and I shall continue to enjoy your postings. -Jarrett Byrnes (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nora Kreimer Date: Monday, 25 Mar 1996 20:22:51 ARG Subject: Re: SHK 7.0236 Re: Shakespeare's Vocabulary and OED Newsletter Shakespeare's Dictionaries Like most of us, I generally have these minor revelations that justify a lifetime pouring over books and dictionaries. I used to feel it in my bones that Shakespeare had a dictionary of some kind on his desk, when he was at work. These fabulous hendiadys that fascinated me, eversince I was a child, a foursome like"weary, stale, flat and unprofitable", "cabined, cribbed, confined, bound in" always filled me with this wonder about a dictionary. It isn't easy to come by info like this in my country, so I used to surprise and amuse my students with the reference to an intuitive sight of the book on his desk. Among the first words I looked up in my own version of THE COMPACT OED of 1991, was, naturally, the word dictionary and...eureka! I got the answer to my queries. DICTIONARY, ... DICTIONARIUS was used c. 1225 by Joannes de Garlandia, a native of England, as the title of a collection of Latin vocables arranged according to thier subjects, in sentences, for the use of learners. In the following century Peter Berchrius (died Paris 1362) wrote a DICTIONARIUM MORALE UTRUISQUS TESTAMENTI for the use of students in theology. In 1538 Thomas Elyot published his Latin-English "DICTIONARY" 1556 J.Withals published "A SHORT DICTIONARY FOR YONGE BEGINNERS" in English and Latin, in which the owrds were arranged not alphabetically, but under subject headings, e.g. "the names od Byrdes, Byrdes of the Water, Byrdes about the house, as cockes, hennes, ets., of Bees, Flies and others. ...................... Dictionaries (so entitled) of English and various modern languages appaered in England from 1547 onward; in the 17th c. the name was gradually extended to words, only "hard words" being admitted into the English Dictionaries. (continues) So, there was one, after all. There were more than one! And they must have been used for the two Bibles as well. I wish I could have a confirmation concerning this, but I'm afraid to confess my epiphanies are restricted to Shakespeare. Nora Kreimer Buenos Aires Argentina (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Tuesday, 26 Mar 1996 06:20:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Correction for ACTER homepage address (fwd) Thanks to all the eagle-eyed readers who noted the error in ACTER's new homepage address. The correct address is: http://www.unc.edu/depts/acter (not und - we are at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill).cynthia dessen, general manager, ACTER ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 19:17:52 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0241 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0241. Wednesday, 27 March 1996. (1) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 27 Mar 1996 08:35:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0237 Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 27 Mar 1996 08:23:21 -0800 Subj: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 27 Mar 1996 08:35:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0237 Re: Funeral Elegy Michael Sharpston calls for a partnership between the intuitive and the, for want of a better word, scientific approaches to determining authorship, but his comparisons, chess and fingerprinting, fall far out of the range of the problems involved in recognizing an individual voice in an area of purest subjectivity, particularly when that voice belonged not only to one of the greatest creative geniuses the world has known, but one who funtioned for the most part in the realm of theatre, so that unlike other poets and writers of "fiction", he was tuned from the outset to change his voice as completely as was humanly possible (in his case perhaps, superhumanly possible) to suit the need of the moment. In addition, he was writing at a very unique time in the history of the English language, when writers were basically creating modern English out of medieval English, French and Latin, to meet the demands of the fledgling publishing industry and commercial theater. Whatever the actual number of words used first by him (one more thing we can never know for sure, since lost works of his forbears may well contain some things he is credited with, and he may have used new words for the first time in works now lost, that are credited to a later writer) he is far and away the greatest source of words, phrases and pithy quotations that have lasted in the language, from his time, and perhaps from all time. So that we have a mind that not only was superb at shifting from one voice to another, but a mind that was constantly developing new ways of expressing itself ("build thee more stately mansions, oh my soul"), and, no doubt, discarding outworn ones in this unending and ongoing process. So that scientistic word counts that might be appropriate with a nineteenth century writer of novels, using his or her same voice throughout, indeed wishing to use the same voice, to have a recognizable style, and using an inherited vocabulary, are not appropriate with this writer. Living as he did at a time of great creativity in language, and near anarchy, his usage of words was to create a new norm, not conform to an old one, thus he is next to impossible to track in this manner. As for words such as "while", if he uses "whiles" or "whilst", one must ask what that particular sound does to the ripple of sound as it passes from pure sound into sense. As a poet, this would be of profound importance to him, and what may not sound "good" to us, may have been the very effect he was seeking. Certainly many writers and critics we have great respect for have missed the point with Shakespeare, over and over. One point regarding Shaxicon, and its proclaimed ability to show what roles the actor Shakespeare played; doesn't it seem more likely that in these peripheral characters we hear, to some extent, the ordinary voice of the author, since in these roles he was not constrained to create a complex persona, complete with his or her own style of self-expression, but was content to slide by with, more or less, his own everyday voice. Stephanie Hughes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 27 Mar 1996 08:23:21 -0800 Subject: Funeral Elegy Consider these few lines as to their likeness, both sets from long elegies. For a moment, let this first set go without the name of the author. It begins like this. "Swift Time, the speedy pursuivant of heaven, Summons to glorious virtue's canonis'd, The lasting volume where worth roves uneven, In brazen characters immortalis'd; Where merit lives embrac'd, base scorn despis'd: Link'd to untainted truth, sprung from the same, Begets his eaglet-towering daughter Fame." And this next, which we all know by now to be W.S. getting underway on William Peter in the Funeral Elegy "Since Time, and his predestinated end, Abridg'd the circuit of his hopeful days, Whiles both his Youth and Virtue did intend The good endeavors of deserving praise, What memorable monument can last Whereon to build his never-blemish'd name But his own worth, wherein his life was grac'd Sith as ever he maintain'd the same? The last set is from the Funeral Elegy, as mentioned. The first set is from Time's Memorial, an elegy written for the Earl of Devonshire. It was written by John Ford in 1606 when he was 20 years old. The Funeral Elegy was written in 1612, and is of unknown authorship. The sets are so closely imagined we might suspect the several lines to be by the same writer. We know that W.S. was a Devonshire man, as was Ford, and several other examples have been given by Don Foster to show the similiar use of language of the two men. These sentiments might be added. TM: "...his fair, unblemish'd soul and spotless mind..." "The quintessence of ripe perfection..." To sanctimonious, taintless purity..." "Who died? a man; nay, more, a perfect saint.... FE: "Of true perfection, in a perfect breast..." "In his pure life...." "His taintless goodness...." It is one thing to say that the deceased was a good man and had friends who grieve, but quite another thing to compare the subject of the elegy with the saints. Other elegies may do so as well, but take the opening lines as quoted above, and take these closures below. Ford gives nine epitaphs after his long elegy (896 lines) on the Earl of Devonshire, the first of them ending-- "Betwixt the gods and men doubly divided, His soul with them, his fame with us abided; In this his life and death was countervail'd, He justly liv'd belov'd, he died bewail'd." The last lines of the Funeral Elegy are these-- "Long may thy worthiness thy name advance Amongst the virtuous and deserving most, Who herein hast forever happy prov'd: In life thou liv'dst, in death thou died'st belov'd." Remembering that John Ford was a friend of the Peter family, I think we'd want to consider that he also wrote the Funeral Elegy 6 years after the Earl of Devonshire elegy. Don Foster says it is out of the question. He says that "Ford himself in 1613 makes pretty clear that he thinks FE is by Shakespeare." Bill Godshalk has asked where indeed did Ford say this, and I second the the question. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 19:27:22 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0242 Qs: *R3* Film; Roudillon Collection Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0242. Wednesday, 27 March 1996. (1) From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Thursday, 21 Mar 1996 20:27:54 -0500 Subj: RICHARD III Film (2) From: Katherine Rowe Date: Wednesday, 27 Mar 1996 14:00:55 -0500 Subj: Query: Roudillon Collection (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Thursday, 21 Mar 1996 20:27:54 -0500 Subject: RICHARD III Film I've been absent from the SHAKSPER list for about a year. I'm interested in messages that were posted concerning the Ian McKellan film of RICHARD III. Could someone please forward them to me? Or are they archived somewhere on the Web? Martin Jukovsky Cambridge, Mass. martyj@user1.channel1.com [L-Soft promises that the next edition of LISTSERV for Unix will have the database function that will facilitate search and retreival for such requests as this. My graduate assistant is currently preparing an Index of SHAKSPER discussions for years six and seven -- Indexes for the first five years are available from the Fileserver as DISCUSS INDEX_1, DISCUSS INDEX_2, DISCUSS INDEX_3, DISCUSS INDEX_4, and DISCUSS INDEX_5. Also, a number of people are considering mounting the past SHAKSPER discussions on Web sites with search engines, more on this later. HMC] (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Katherine Rowe Date: Wednesday, 27 Mar 1996 14:00:55 -0500 Subject: Query: Roudillon Collection Does anyone know of a collection of art (including some sculpture, c. 1600) or maybe a medical collection, called the Roudillon Collection? My citation to it, from *Fragments for a History of the Human Body*, is minimal. Extensive consultation and diggin Please reply directly to katherine.rowe@yale.edu Thanks, Katherine Rowe Assistant Professor Department of English Yale University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 19:34:57 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0243 Re: Vocabulary; Physical Size; ACTER in Phoenix Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0243. Wednesday, 27 March 1996. (1) From: Bruce Fenton Date: Wednesday, 27 Mar 1996 08:27:59 -0500 Subj: Vocabulary (2) From: Elizabeth Blye Schmitt Date: Wednesday, 27 Mar 1996 09:41:06 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0210 Q: Physical Size of Elizabethans (3) From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Wednesday, 27 Mar 1996 06:14:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: ACTER in Phoenix (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Fenton Date: Wednesday, 27 Mar 1996 08:27:59 -0500 Subject: Vocabulary It would be interesting to note that not only did Shakespeare use a very large number of words but he used them in many different ways. I am curious if anyone has vocabulary numbers which reflect the various definitions of words in the plays. In other words, has anyone counted each distinct definition or word use style separately. For example look how many different ways the word 'light' is used: HAMLET "I could a tale unfold who's lightest word..." Ghost ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL Act 2, Scene 1, In this my light deliverance, I have spoke Act 3, Scene 4, That he does weigh too light: my greatest grief. Act 4, Scene 2, If quick fire of youth light not your mind, CYMBELINE Act 1, Scene 6, Base and unlustrous as the smoky light Act 3, Scene 1, for light; else, sir, no more tribute, pray you now. LOVE'S LABOURS LOST Act 1, Scene 1, To seek the light of truth; while truth the while light seeking light doth light of light beguile: So, ere you find where light in darkness lies, Your light grows dark by losing of your eyes. And give him light that it was blinded by. Act 2, Scene 1, A woman sometimes, an you saw her in the light. MEASURE FOR MEASURE Act 4, Scene 3, With a light heart; trust not my holy order, MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING Act 2, Scene 1, You may light on a husband that hath no beard. Act 4, Scene 1, Come, let us go. These things, come thus to light, TROILUS AND CRESSIDA Act 1, Scene 1, I have, as when the sun doth light a storm, Act 2, Scene 3, light boats sail swift, though greater hulks draw deep. KING RICHARD III Act 4, Scene 4, Day, yield me not thy light; nor, night, thy rest! Some light-foot friend post to the Duke of Norfolk: 1 KING HENRY IV Act 3, Scene 2, Who, I? no; I defy thee: God's light, I was never KING HENRY V Act 2, Scene 2, Hath, for a few light crowns, lightly conspired, Since God so graciously hath brought to light Act 4, Scene 8, --a most contagious treason come to light, look By this day and this light, the fellow has mettle KING RICHARD II Act 1, Scene 3, Then thus I turn me from my country's light, My oil-dried lamp and time-bewasted light The man that mocks at it and sets it light. MACBETH Act 1, Scene 4, Let not light see my black and deep desires: Act 3, Scene 2, Which keeps me pale! light thickens; and the crow .......you get the idea. My guess is that a count of this type would yield something like 100,000 words. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Blye Schmitt Date: Wednesday, 27 Mar 1996 09:41:06 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0210 Q: Physical Size of Elizabethans An easy tangible reference, although it might require a field trip to the UK, would be to show them the size of extant armor and clothing from the period. Also anyone who has bumped their head on the beams of Shakespeare's birthplace in Stratford can easily attest to the reduced stature of most Elizabethans. Elizabeth Schmitt ebs0001@jove.acs.unt.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Wednesday, 27 Mar 1996 06:14:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: ACTER in Phoenix ACTER has the possibility of performing in the Phoenix area in October 1996 with *Much Ado About Nothing* - if anyone on this list is at a college or university in the area that might be able to share a week with another venue, please contact cynthia dessen at csdessen@email.unc.edu. I am particularly interested in anyone coming to the ISA, as I will be there at the ACTER exhbition and we could discuss this. thanks, cynthia dessen, general manager, ACTER========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 19:43:00 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0244 Death of Sam Schoenbaum Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0244. Thursday, 28 March 1996. From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Thursday, 28 Mar 96 10:34:00 PST Subject: Death All Shakespeareans will be sorry to learn of the death of Sam Schoenbaum. Many of you know that he had been ill for some years, and he passed away Wednesday morning. His influence in Shakespeare studies in the latter part of the 20th century has been enormous, through his own important scholarship on Shakespeare's life and through his outreach and generosity to many scholars from around the world. He was one of the founding members of the International Shakespeare Congress. When we know of plans for a memorial, we will post those in this forum. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 20:02:25 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0245 Re: RSC MND; R3 Film; Physical Size of Elizabethans Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0245. Thursday, 28 March 1996. (1) From: Scott Crozier Date: Thursday, 28 Mar 1996 13:35:02 +1000 Subj: Re: RSC Dream (2) From: Laura Blanchard Date: Thursday, 28 Mar 1996 08:40:48 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0242 Qs: *R3* Film (3) From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 28 Mar 1996 12:32:27 -0500 (EST) Subj: Physical Size of Elizabethans (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Thursday, 28 Mar 1996 13:35:02 +1000 Subject: Re: RSC Dream Rick Kincaid commented: "For those of you in the NYC area: If you have the chance to see the RSC's A Midsummer Night's Dream at the Lunt Fontane please do so. The production was imaginative, sensual and humorous, the acting dead on. I thoroughly enjoyed it, which was more than I expected, having seen it and done too many times myself. And though it does capture the sensuality of the fairies and the lovers, it isn't so overt that you'll be answering uncomfortable questions from your children on the way home from the theater." I too have seen this production - four times and I would suggest that the last paragraph of the above comment suggests more about the inadequacies of the production than its supposed brilliance. It is colourful, it sounds beautiful; but it lacks integrity of character; it gets lost by doubling the fairies with the mechanicals when the central dream is not Bottom's; it is static and the lovers relive the buffoonery of Peter Hall's 1958 production. A production for kids maybe, but not for anyone out for theatre for the brain. Regards, Scott Crozier (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Blanchard Date: Thursday, 28 Mar 1996 08:40:48 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0242 Qs: *R3* Film I have one of the pre-release reviews from SHAKSPER posted on our McKellen film site, along with excerpts of reviews from the major NY papers and virtually everything from the international distribution company's press kit. There's a link right from the home page -- you can't miss it, since it's a thumbnail of McKellen in full 30s regalia. Regards, Laura Blanchard Richard III Society, American Branch lblanchard@aol.com http://www.webcom.com/blanchrd/index.html (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 28 Mar 1996 12:32:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Physical Size of Elizabethans Elizabeth Schmitt: I am inclined to agree with the short-bed, small-clothes, low-ceiling evidence, but, as others have pointed out, beware of the vagaries of time in what has survived as evidence, or of selection processes of which we may not be aware (*A Canticle for Leibowitz* was a nice fictional example of the latter some decades ago). Having bumped my head at Fallingwater, I might draw mistaken conclusions about the stature of Edgar Kaufmann's family, when in fact Frank Llyod Wright built everything to his own 5'7" scale. Jim Schaefer 6'1" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 20:08:27 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0246 Englishness; Let there be light; SSE in Vermont Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0246. Thursday, 28 March 1996. (1) From: Scott Crozier Date: Thursday, 28 Mar 1996 13:41:54 +1000 Subj: Re: Englishness (2) From: Michael Best Date: Wednesday, 27 Mar 1996 21:40:42 -0800 Subj: Let there be light (3) From: The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express Date: Thursday, 28 Mar 1996 11:58:32 -0500 Subj: SSE in Vermont (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Thursday, 28 Mar 1996 13:41:54 +1000 Subject: Re: Englishness I presume that this topic may have already been discussed at some length at a time when I was not a member of this list, so I apologise if this is repetition but I was wondering what SHAKSPERians thought was the most English of Shakespeare's plays. Discounting the English Histories, which play(s) encapsulates what was "English" for Shakespeare? If there is such a beast, what elements of Englishness did he highlight? Regards, Scott Crozier (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Best Date: Wednesday, 27 Mar 1996 21:40:42 -0800 Subject: Let there be light Bruce Fenton comments on Shakespeare's variations on the word "light." My favourite is from _Love's Labours Lost_: . . . all delights are vain, but that most vain Which, with pain purchased, doth inherit pain: As painfully to pore upon a book To seek the light of truth, while truth the while Doth falsely blind the eyesight of his look. Light, seeking light, doth light of light beguile; So, ere you find where light in darkness lies, Your light grows dark by losing of your eyes. (1.1.70-79) Enlightening indeed. Michael Best Department of English, University of Victoria, Victoria B.C. V8W 3W1, Canada. email: URL: Coordinating Editor, Internet Editions of Shakespeare URL: (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express Date: Thursday, 28 Mar 1996 11:58:32 -0500 Subject: SSE in Vermont The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express will be performing in the Burlington/ Colchester area during the second week of October. If anyone on this list would like to share the week with St. Michael's (who is already on board) please contact Margo McGirr at sshakespea@aol.com. I am the new Booking Coordinator and I'll be representing the SSE at the ISA...for those of you who have seen the SSE in the past three years, I played Olivia, Kate, and Cleopatra. Please feel free to stop by my table in LA or e-mail me for further discussion. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 08:04:01 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0247 Re: Death of Sam Schoenbaum Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0247. Sunday, 31 March 1996. (1) From: Ted Nellen Date: Friday, 29 Mar 1996 01:54:52 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0244 Death of Sam Schoenbaum (2) From: Tad Davis Date: Friday, 29 Mar 1996 14:23:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: Schoenbaum (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ted Nellen Date: Friday, 29 Mar 1996 01:54:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0244 Death of Sam Schoenbaum My condolences to the family and Shakespearean scholars around the world. I would like to say that Mr Schoenbaum has had a great influence upon me. I had the pleasure of hearing him and speaking to him one evening in NYC at the CUNY Graduate Center in the late 80's. He had inspired and ignited a fire in me in regards to the Lost years of Shakespeare. Those years fascinate me, and he had done some remarkable work on that subject. He shared and complimented me on my ideas and inspired me to further work. We also shared in the pleasure of having seen Patrick Stewart play Shylock and in considering it a brilliant performance. I just wished to share my brief time with this brilliant man with you. Thank you, Sam Schoenbaum. Give you good night. - O, farewell. Ted (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Davis Subject: Schoenbaum Date: Friday, 29 Mar 1996 14:23:46 -0500 (EST) I was very saddened yesterday to hear that Samuel Schoenbaum had died. It's probably presumptuous of me to say anything about him in this forum; I'm not a professional Shakespearean; I only met him once, in person, for about 20 minutes, and exchanged letters with him three or four times. Yet I feel a terrible sense of loss. His passionate devotion to accuracy and detail -- never losing sight of the humanity of his subjects -- touched me deeply and had a profound influence on my intellectual development. I never took a class with him, and yet in some sense I feel that I was a student of his, or at least an auditor. He enriched my life, and it seems ungrateful not to say anything in return. I first heard of him the year after I graduated with a B.A. in English. I was working in a medical library in Richmond, Virginia when the "Documentary Life" was first announced. I was trying to write a play that involved Shakespeare, and I had taken up the hobby of reading about his life. I'd read Marchette Chute, Anthony Burgess, and A. L. Rowse. Now came someone promising to deliver the real goods. But I was put off by the price. In 1975, I think it was $50; on my income at the time, it might as well have been $500. I probed the libraries in town, hoping one of them would order it. When the public library finally got a copy, it was kept on reserve, not allowed to circulate; I spent a number of lunch hours that year leafing through the book. Meanwhile I found a copy of "Shakespeare's Lives" in the library and started reading that too. At first it didn't appeal to me. The first 50 pages or so, the summary of what's known, is a bit dry, like the documents themselves. But by the time I'd gotten through the first chapter of part II, I was hooked. The Schoenbaum in later chapters is quite different from the Schoenbaum of that opening section. He was witty, acerbic at times, devastating in his analysis, and yet always with a compassionate eye for detail. The people he wrote about sounded like real people -- some of them brilliant, some of them insane, some of them thieves and mutilators of texts, all of them fellow human beings. Over all the bustle watched that stern and dispassionate judge, the one who said: what matters is what your sources say -- not what you think they say. Open your eyes and see what's actually in front of you. What matters is the thing itself. During the middle of this reading experience, my wife and I took a long drive through North and South Carolina to visit her family in Georgia. Interminable hours on interstates, no tape player in the car, no radio stations we wanted to listen to.... so I took out my copy of "Shakespeare's Lives" and started reading it out loud. We took turns driving and reading Schoenbaum to each other. We've often agreed, over the course of the last 20 years, that it was one of the best trip entertainments we've ever selected. I wrote him a letter of appreciation. To my amazement, he answered it. He rarely heard from people outside the profession, he said, and it was a great pleasure to know that he had been able to "get through." I corresponded with him several more times -- once when the "Compact Documentary Life" came out, a couple of times with research questions, and again many years later when his Signet introductory volume came out. He always answered my letters generously, with gratitude for my appreciation and with a reference or two for me to follow up if I was interested. If I was ever in Washington, he said once, I should look him up at the Folger; he was usually there on such-and-such a day. I took him at his word, and sent him a letter saying I would be able to visit the Folger on that day in two weeks, and I would most certainly look him up. When the day arrived, I took the train to DC and headed for the Folger. I had never been there before, and the security was, to say the least, impressive. The guard at the front desk laughed when I told him I was there to see Prof. Schoenbaum. "Haven't seen him today," he said. He made it clear that even if I was a Ph.D. candidate with three letters of recommendation I would have a hard time getting past him. But if I wanted to look around the gallery for awhile, I could do that. I wandered around for over an hour. Every time I walked past the guard he gave me a pitying look, and I averted my eyes. Outside it began to snow. When I was about to give up, Prof. Schoenbaum scurried in, apologizing for the misunderstanding. He'd never gotten word that I was there. He brought me to a little sitting room in back, offered me coffee, told me how pleased he was to actually meet a "fan." Then he asked me a lot of questions about my own plays and writings. We talked about the (then) upcoming BBC Shakespeare on PBS ("some of them," he said cautiously, "are likely to be better than others"). He introduced me to one of his colleagues who wandered by. He said the next time my wife and I came to Washington, we should give him and his wife a call, maybe get together for a chat. The visit ended abruptly when someone came in to announce the Library was closing because of the snow. He walked me out, we shook hands, and I left. That was it. We corresponded a couple of times after that. Once, when I was trying to write an article, I needed an obscure book by Halliwell-Phillipps the Folger had (and apparently only one or two other places on the face of the earth). I wrote to him, and he offered to give me a reference to help me get access to the book, or at least a photocopy. "It would be good, though," he said, "if you spelled his name right when you ask." I had left the second "P" out of Phillipps. I was mortified for about five minutes; but the gentle tone of the correction sank home. It matters what your sources say -- not what you think they say. Open your eyes and see what's actually in front of you. What matters is the thing itself. In the years since then, I moved into a career in programming. Yet Prof. Schoenbaum's influence on me continues. Every time I have to investigate a problem or document a program, I think about him and his indefatigable quest for the accurate detail and the balanced analysis. (I still have the original poster, with the Droeshout engraving, announcing the publication of "Mr. William Shakespeares Documentary Life set forth by S. Schoenbaum and Printed according to the True Originall Copies." It's hanging next to my desk.) The body of work he created is an intimidating legacy. But it didn't get there overnight, I tell myself. He built it up piece by piece, picking up one document at a time, examining it, turning it over, transcribing it, checking the transcription, and moving on. He kept his focus on what was actually in front of him, not what he thought was in front of him, not what he wished was in front of him. And when he didn't know, he had the grace and courage to admit he didn't know. And when he made a mistake or discovered new information, he wasn't afraid to "stop the presses" to get it out, even if was only in a paragraph tucked away on the last page of the index. And braced with that reflection, I open up my listings and reports and go to work. Tad ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 08:08:41 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0248 Re: Physical Size of Elizabethans; RSC MND Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0248. Sunday, 31 March 1996. (1) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 29 Mar 1996 07:58:02 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0245 Re: Physical Size of Elizabethans (2) From: Michael Sharpston Date: Friday, 29 Mar 1996 15:48:12 +0000 (GMT) Subj: RSC MND (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 29 Mar 1996 07:58:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0245 Re: Physical Size of Elizabethans Jim Schaeffer; Although the evidence seems clear that people were smaller in bygone days (there are just too many small clothes for them all to have been left by people who couldn't wear them for that reason), there certainly were individuals we would consider tall today, such as Peter the Great (6' 5") and Abraham Lincoln (and others I can't recall), and their height, though commented upon by contemporaries, was obviously not regarded as such an enormity that we could construe them to be all that unusual. I think it is interesting also that within families who have emigrated to the U.S. from Europe, particularly southern Europe, the height seems to increase, sometimes to a surprising extent, within a generation or two (or three). Stephanie Hughes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Sharpston Date: Friday, 29 Mar 1996 15:48:12 +0000 (GMT) Subject: RSC MND Like Scott Crozier, I had my reservations about the RSC MND. The verse was beautifully enunciated, and the staging extremely competent -- but these one expects from the RSC. There was a bit of homoerotic business I could have done without, since it seemed out of place and perhaps mainly intended to shock the bourgeoisie. But overall, very professional. What the production did NOT do, except for one or two moments, was move my feelings or create emotional magic. Can RSC sometimes be too clever for their own good? I still think my compatriots at the RSC have a serious claim to be the "best repertory theatre in the world", however... A different play, but by contrast H5 here recently at the Shakespeare Theatre in DC was absolutely outstanding, with a Henry 5 I shall remember for a very long while. Michael Sharpston msharpston@worldbank.org ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 08:14:12 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0249 Announcement: Renaissance Forum; ISA/SAA Roommates Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0249. Sunday, 31 March 1996. (1) From: R. D. H. Wells Date: Friday, 29 Mar 1996 15:49:47 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Announcement: Renaissance Forum (2) From: Kay Pilzer Date: Saturday, 30 Mar 1996 11:02:14 -0600 (CST) Subj: ISA/SAA Roommates (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: R. D. H. Wells Date: Friday, 29 Mar 1996 15:49:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Announcement: Renaissance Forum Renaissance Forum: Announcement We are pleased to announce the first issue of _Renaissance Forum_, a new electronic refereed journal specialising in early-modern English literary and historical scholarship and the critical methodologies of these fields. The journal is published biannually from the Departments of English and History at the University of Hull, UK. Its aim is to offer a platform for work of the highest scholarly standard in an electronic medium, and to provide a forum for scholarly and theoretical debate. The journal is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.hull.ac.uk/Hull/EL_Web/renforum/ If you would like to join our email information list, please send the message subscribe to renforum-request@hull.ac.uk *************************************** Volume 1, no. 1 (March 1996) - Contents Articles Editorial: Renaissance Texts and Renaissance Republicanism (Glenn Burgess) Transgressing Boundaries: Women's Writing in the Renaissance and Reformation (Janet Clare) Attacking the Cult-Historicists (Martin Coyle) Making all Religion Ridiculous: Of Culture high and Low - the Polemics of Toleration, 1667-1673 (Derek Hirst) Reviews Markku Peltonen, Civic Humanism and Republicanism in English Political Thought, 1570-1640 (by Glenn Burgess) Susan D. Amussen & Mark A. Kishlansky (eds), Political Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern Europe (by Mark Stoyle) Alvin Kernan, Shakespeare, The Kings Playwright: Theater in the Stuart Court, 1603-1613 (by Steve Longstaffe) Robert Shaughnessy, Representing Shakespeare: England, History and the RSC (by Michael Scott) Anthony Parr (ed.), Three Renaissance Travel Plays (by Emma Smith) Glenn Burgess Robin Headlam Wells (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kay Pilzer Date: Saturday, 30 Mar 1996 11:02:14 -0600 (CST) Subject: ISA/SAA Roommates Hello-- There is still room to share my $60/night room at the Hyatt for one or two more impoverished women scholars. Please contact me directly: Kay Pilzer Vanderbilt University (PILZERKL@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu>========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 10:14:15 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0250 Re: Physical Size of Elizabethans; RSC MND Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0250. Monday, 1 April 1996. (1) From: Ron Dwelle Date: Sunday, 31 Mar 1996 09:52:13 -0800 Subj: Re: Physical Size of Elizabethans (2) From: Richard Kincaid Date: Sunday, 31 Mar 1996 21:48:49 Subj: Re: RSC MND (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Dwelle Date: Sunday, 31 Mar 1996 09:52:13 -0800 Subject: Re: Physical Size of Elizabethans Regarding the physical size of Elizabethans, relative to current Americans--in a former life I was an animal breeder. One of the usual side effects of "out-crossing" (that is, breeding outside of the normal gene-pool of the standard population) is an increase in physical size. If you want to reduce size, you "in-breed" (that is, breed to a close relative from the same gene-pool). Presumably, there was little genetic out-crossing in Elizabethan England. Another side-effect of outcrossing, by the way, is loss of stability in temperament (i.e., wild and crazy offspring). But that's another American story. I know I've read a clear allusion to the phenomenon in Shakespeare, but I can't locate it offhand. I thought it was the Lord or huntsman in the Sly induction in Taming, but there's no direct reference to size outcomes in breeding--just to other dog-breeding facts which presumably dog-handlers and Shakespeare were well aware of. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Kincaid Date: Sunday, 31 Mar 1996 21:48:49 Subject: Re: RSC MND I don't know what Michael Sharpston considered homoerotic about RSC's MSN. Perhap's when Puck was nestled in Oberon's arms while Operon told him his plans and Puck kissed him on the cheek? Yes that did hint at a possible sexual relationship, but it certainly wasn't overtly erotic! And certainly not as prominently sexual as Bottom's shlong (or a representation thereof) hanging out of his fly. And what do you think Oberon wants the Indian boy for: to feed him mead? All too often MSND is put on so devoid of the sexual liberty that the fairies represent that it might as well be a childrens show: cute little fairies running around in pixie outfits. RSC suggested the libertine nature of the fairies as opposed to the constricted lives of the Athenians without going overboard. In fact, they could hae gone further. And Bottom's "shlong" was just a piece of cloth, easily explained by quick thinking parents as just having his shirttail protruding from an open fly. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 10:17:53 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0251 Re: Death of Sam Schoenbaum Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0251. Monday, 1 April 1996. (1) From: Christine R. Gray Date: Sunday, 31 Mar 1996 10:14:57 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0247 Re: Death of Sam Schoenbaum (2) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Sunday, 31 Mar 1996 12:18:21 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0247 Re: Death of Sam Schoenbaum (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine R. Gray Date: Sunday, 31 Mar 1996 10:14:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0247 Re: Death of Sam Schoenbaum I was saddened to hear of Professor Schoenbaum's death. I can hardly believe that I have even typed those words. I too was influenced by him and his generous nature. In 1987, I took a graduate seminar with him on Lear, Hamlet, and Macbeth at the University of Maryland. There were only seven of us in the class, which was to our advantage for we had full access to him several hours each week. I remember sitting in his office talking over various manuscripts at the Folger that he said no one had looked at. (I don't think anyone has to this day.) One event in particular stands out in my mind. I was teaching a literature survey in prison at the time I was attending Dr. Schoenbaum's seminar. The class was made up of inner-city men, mostly, who were doing time for serious crimes. The class asked me if my teacher would consider visiting the class. Professor Schoenbaum agreed to. I went to his house on Capitol Hill where he gave me a tour, showing me much of what he had on Shakespeare--books, sculptures, cards, drawings, dishes, etc. We then drove to the prison where he discussed Othello with 20 men, who had never heard of Professor Schoenbaum, for 2 1/2 hours. I remember that one of the men asked him why he had devoted his life to a "dead man." That was a cue, it seems, for Professor Schoenbaum to speak about Shakespeare as a living person. He also spoke to them about Othello's blackness and about the theme of jealousy. Several of the men then "got" the play because he spoke to them in their language, nothing stuffy or remote. He read several passages from the play. He had a few men come up to act out various scenes with him. It was a peak moment for all of us--I would say even for him. Christine Gray (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Sunday, 31 Mar 1996 12:18:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0247 Re: Death of Sam Schoenbaum Thanks, Tad Davis, for sharing your memories. Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 10:27:03 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0252 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0252. Monday, 1 April 1996. (1) From: Michael Sharpston Date: Sunday, 31 Mar 1996 15:41:42 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Intuitive vs. "Scientific" (2) From: Harry Hill Date: Sunday, 31 Mar 1996 09:58:12 +0000 (HELP) Subj: [Recording of *The Funeral Elegy* Available] (3) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Sunday, 31 Mar 1996 10:42:43 -0800 Subj: Anonymous (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Sharpston Date: Sunday, 31 Mar 1996 15:41:42 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Intuitive vs. "Scientific" I liked the recent comments by Stephanie Hughes on the difficulty of devising quantitative measures that would convincingly determine authorship, especially authorship by Shakespeare. Her earlier piece, also, of February 16, SHK 7.0127, I found rather telling -- "...those who see, not the man, but the clothes". My own recent posting was a deliberately broad attempt to show where and why, in April 1996, computer approaches were likely to prove valid or not. Chess must have seemed to many a rather human skill, or people would not have got so agitated when Kasparov lost: but certainly it isn't poetry. I do not know if there is a linguistic equivalent of "fingerprints", very hard to disguise. The posting by Jim Helfers, SHK 7.0238, on stylometry, seemed to me fascinating, but I do not have the expertise to judge it. Presumably there is an empirical question here, that perhaps some form of resampling could help determine. Chess and fingerprints may seem quite far from blank verse (although in fact Jim Helfers does also make passing reference to fingerprints); Cicero and his clausulae in any case seem significantly less far from blank verse. I do find it of interest, perhaps relevance, that the belief tended to be that "esse videatur" was the classic Cicero metric ending, when in fact statistically the picture was more diverse. If one suspends disbelief in the computer approach for just a moment, what would people suggest as a re-write for the much-denigrated Shaxicon's algorithms? Does the stylometric posting offer any hope? Recent studies of violence on American TV have used quantitative methods, to me rather meaningfully (and apparently politically potently), to document such violence and even its likely impact on the viewer. Perhaps Shakespeare is beyond all that, but it might be worth giving a shot. Michael Sharpston msharpston@worldbank.org (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Sunday, 31 Mar 1996 09:58:12 +0000 (HELP) Subject: [Recording of *The Funeral Elegy* Available] "Funeral Elegy for Master William Peter" by W.S. Read by Harry Hill Notes by Donald W.Foster and Richard Abrams ORDER FORM Compact Disc (with full edited text of the Elegy) or Audio Cassette recordings, __ Number of AUDIO CASSETTES @ US$10.00 or CAN$14.00 each Sub-total_______ __ Number of COMPACT DISCS @ US$14.00 or CAN$18.00 each Sub-total_______ Canadian Residents please add CAN$3.75 shipping and handling _______ & 7% GST Subtotal _______ U.S. Residents please add US $3.75 shipping and handling Subtotal _______ TOTAL___________ Name: _________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________ Apt.#: ______________________ City: ______________________ Prov./State: ______________________ Postal/Zip ____________________ PLEASE SEND CHEQUE OR MONEY ORDER TO: Elegy-LOY HB 309 Concordia University 7141 Sherbrooke Street West Montreal, Quebec Canada H4B 1R6 Please make your cheque or money order to ELEGY, and allow three weeks for delivery of tapes, five for CD. Orders may also be sent to leggs@alcor.concordia.ca (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Sunday, 31 Mar 1996 10:42:43 -0800 Subject: Anonymous My posts on the anonymous Doctor Dodypoll (1600) brought me some private mail, twice wondering if I knew about "Thomas of Woodstock", another asking about "Edmund Ironside". Not knowing much, I checked out a book that included those two plays: "Six Early Plays related to the Shakespeare Canon", written by E.B. Everitt and R.L. Armstrong. Copenhagen, 1965. The plays are these: The True Chronicle History of King Leir (1605) The Troublesome Reign of [King] John (1591) Edward III (1596) Thomas of Woodstock (ms. 1593?) Edmund Ironside (ms. 1590?) The Weakest Goeth to the Wall (1600) Everitt says of his selection: "I believe thoughtful reading of these six plays and the associated evidence will itself suggest a common authorship." The first four have been standing in Shakespeare's foyer for some time, and Edmund Ironside not so long, but I've never heard of "The Weakest" knocking at the door. It's this last play that particularly caught my attention, having somewhat to do with Doctor Dodypoll. First of all, you should know that there is poetry in it. Here are a few lines, Leonitius making his report of a budding romance. "...the princess and young Ferdinand, Curbing their steeds in with their silken reins, Into a grove rode secretly together. Thrice did I see him kiss her snowy hand, And with three humble cursies bowed his head Down to the stirrup of Odillia. Then did I see him whispering in her ear, When with her fan she won the wanton wind To cool his face as they rode gently on. Then came they to a little purling brook, Whereas they paused, as it should seem, to hear The bird's sweet music to the bubbling stream. Then did I see him lift his eyes towards hers; ...whereas she plucked a bloomed lemon branch With her white hand, out of her coronet, And with her finger 'twined it in his lock And smiled, and bowed her head into his bosom. And thus with gentle parlance both together, They paced on unto the flow'ry lawn That's as pretty a little tableau as Shakespeare ever wrote. Unfortunately, being more history than romance, there's not nearly so much poetry as in Dodypoll. Nevertheless, the small portion left me wondering because "The Weakest Goeth to the Wall" and "Doctor Dodypoll", both anon., were entered in the Stationer's Register in the same month, October, 1600, and both plays were printed by Thomas Creed, for Richard Olive, dwelling in Long Lane, 1600. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 10:32:24 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0253 Q: Shakespeare y el teatro latinoamericano Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0253. Monday, 1 April 1996. From: Nora Kreimer Date: Monday, 1 Apr 1996 08:20:57 ARG Subject: Shakespeare y el teatro latinoamericano Please, this mail is from one of the Professors at the University of Buenos Aires. He'd like to get some info concerning Shakespeare's influence on Latin American plays and possible critical works on the subject. I confess myself quite at a loss and I'm sure the list will provide a satisfactory answer. I'm very grateful for your kind help, and remain at your service. Nora Kreimer Ugarteche 2883 1 A 1425 Buenos Aires Argentina Voice: (541) 801-3486 Internet: norkre@einstein.com.ar ********************* > Subject: Shakespeare y el teatro latinoamericano > > Estimada Nora: > > Soy docente auxiliar e investigador en Literatura Brasilenia y Portuguesa > de la UBA. Procuro localizar textos teatrales latinoamericanos que tengan > como fuente obras de Shakespeare asi como bibliografia critica al respecto. > Conoces algo de esto? Podes ayudarme con alguna indicacion? Desde ya > muchas gracias por tu atencion. > Carlos Alberto Pasero > postmaster@brasil.filo.uba.ar ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 06:28:20 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0254 Qs: Girl Actors; Shrew Induction; ISA Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0254. Wednesday, 3 April 1996. (1) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 1 Apr 1996 09:54:23 -0800 (PST) Subj: Girl Actors (2) From: Mike Field Date: Monday, 1 Apr 1996 16:27:34 -0500 Subj: Shrew Induction (3) From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Tuesday, 2 Apr 1996 07:47:49 -0500 Subj: ISA (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 1 Apr 1996 09:54:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Girl Actors If the Elizabethans liked using boys to play girls, later societies have often used girls to play boys. It was common in Italian opera. The American actress Mary Martin had her biggest Broadway hit playing Peter Pan. I understand that on some occasions in the 19th century the part of Romeo was frequently played by a woman, which to me, among other things, indicates that the Victorians may have had something of a queer notion as to who Romeo was. Can anyone supply me with references to discussions or documents concerning Romeo played as a "breech part" in the 19th century? All I've been able to come up with so far is documentation of one particular production late in the century, and offhanded remarks by a few critics that this kind of production was "common." Your help would be very much appreciated. Robert Appelbaum app3500@uclink.berkeley.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Field Date: Monday, 1 Apr 1996 16:27:34 -0500 Subject: Shrew Induction I wonder who out there has seen Shrew done with the Christopher Sly induction, the interludes and the epilogue (which all occur as an appendix in the Arden edition)? Anyone? Does Sly stay on stage the whole time? Does this framing device distance the story of Kate and Petruchio from us? To what purpose? Although I would welcome the theoretical I am especially interested in the practical since this is on behalf of a friend who has decided to stage the "compleat" Shrew. Anyone with any experience as participant or spectator to this take on Shrew out there? Any comments at all would be welcome, direct or to the list. Mike Field Johns Hopkins University pmf@jhu.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Tuesday, 2 Apr 1996 07:47:49 -0500 Subject: ISA An overseas member of my seminar at the ISA next week (who is not on e-mail) has just lost her roommate for the week of the ISA conference in Los Angeles and, at the last minute, is seeking someone with whom she can share accommodations. If you are interested, please contact her (in Brazil) by phone or FAX (before she leaves for the US on Friday).: Maragarida Rauen Phone: 55-41-254-8726 FAX: 55-41-257-6120 Thanks. Cary M. Mazer ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 06:36:57 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0255 Re: The Future; RSC MND; Shakespeare in Latin America Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0255. Wednesday, 3 April 1996. (1) From: Porter Jamison Date: Monday, 1 Apr 1996 13:39:28 -0800 Subj: Re: The Future (SHK 7.0226) (2) From: Michael Sharpston Date: Tuesday, 02 Apr 1996 12:30:03 +0000 (GMT) Subj: RSC MND (3) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Tuesday, 02 Apr 1996 07:25:27 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Shakespeare in Latin America (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Porter Jamison Date: Monday, 1 Apr 1996 13:39:28 -0800 Subject: Re: The Future (SHK 7.0226) >Paul Hawkins . . . was astonished to find that . . . his Shakspeare >students at Marianopolis College did not know what "mourning" was, >then doubly surprised when some more admitted they had never seen or >used the word "dew". > > . . . > > . . . I think this most recent innocence is a signal to us to >teach less thematically and politically and more semantically and >linguistically. These plays are almost nothing at all, without their >words and the rich ambiguities and resonances wihin them. Bravo, sir, bravo! I am currently teaching senior-level English at a private high school, one that prides itself on both its "rigorous" training and on letting in only the "most advanced" students. Even after three "rigorous" years, these "advanced" students' vocabulary is inadequate to handle Dickens, much less Shakespeare. Once they understand the words, most are able to discuss basic thematic/interpretive concepts-- I know because I taught _Hamlet_ word-for-word with them over the space of eleven (!!) weeks-- but almost to a person they have stunted their linguistic sense in favor of advanced visual interpretive skills. Other high school instructors I've spoken with have noted the same trend. My question is what should we do to reach them, other than sharing our own love of language and encouraging its growth in them? These kids are amazed by these characters and delight in the stories, but without basic vocabulary (or the desire to attain it) are we teachers limited to video interpretations, Cliff's Notes, and three-month discussion series? Clearly, what high school English programs are doing now is, for the most part, inadequate. I've found some solutions/approaches which seem to work, but would love to hear more. Without throwing this back onto the junior highs and the parents-- not because I don't believe both to be vital, but because there is next to nothing that high school teachers can *do* about them-- what do you recommend be done in order to prepare students for college instruction? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Sharpston Date: Tuesday, 02 Apr 1996 12:30:03 +0000 (GMT) Subject: RSC MND Richard Kincaid makes a strong case for sexual licence among the fairies. For better or for worse, the episode that bothered me was indeed the suggested relationship between Oberon and Puck (and accordingly I shall not comment on the other things he mentions). Not particularly graphicness or otherwise of gesture, but why we were having a sexual bond between them at all. But someone better steeped in the folklore behind Oberon and Puck may correct me. In any case, I would happily have given the RSC half a dozen such incidents that bothered me, if I had felt the emotional magic that seemed to me missing. The missing emotional magic was the focus of my posting. Michael Sharpston msharpston@worldbank.org (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Tuesday, 02 Apr 1996 07:25:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakespeare in Latin America I hope that any responses are posted on the list as well as privately. As project coordinator for the new variorum *Hamlet,* I am particularly interested in *Hamlet* in Latin America. I also suggest that you consult Kenneth S. Rothwell's book *Shakespeare on Screen,* which lists several films from South America. Some of these will be shown at the World Shakespeare Conference next week. Good luck, Bernice W. Kliman ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 06:45:02 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0256 Re: Funeral Elegy; Remedies Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0256. Wednesday, 3 April 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 02 Apr 1996 17:47:57 -0500 (EST) Subj: FE in the TLS (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 1 Apr 1996 18:56:00 -0800 Subj: Funeral Elegy (3) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 2 Apr 1996 18:23:07 -0800 Subj: Remedies (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 02 Apr 1996 17:47:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: FE in the TLS A report for those who do not read the TLS: Rick Abrams in his recent letter to the TLS (March 22, 1996) takes Vickers to task for supposing that SHAXICON generally analyzes style. So we really should distinguish between SHAXICON's function (i.e., to search for words) and our search for stylistic parallels between Shakespeare's plays and poems, and FE (e.g., enjambement, hendiadys, "incongruent who/m," word formation, and hyphenation). Abrams generally rebuts Vickers's argument -- pointing out inconsistencies and misinterpretations. In the March 29 issue (TLS), 17, Don Foster calls Vickers' response "An entertainment," and goes on to point on Vickers' mistakes (and unacknowledged borrowings). But in the same issue, Katherine Duncan-Jones (who provides the scholars who argue for Shakespeare's authorship of FE with some of their ammunition) makes three points against the ascription: (1) the prefatory epistle seems to indicate that the writer of FE is not a practising poet; (2) the writer of FE is too modest to be Shakespeare; and (3) George Eld possibly attribute FE to W.S. in hopes that readers would think the poem by Shakespeare, but a "few minutes' perusal of the volume surely revealed the deception." Duncan-Jones thinks the poem is a Devonshire poem, and thinks that one of the Stukeleys or Sir William Strode may be the author. (Don Foster has considered his son, also William Strode {1600-1645}.) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 1 Apr 1996 18:56:00 -0800 Subject: Funeral Elegy Here are three conclusions about deceased men done up in verse, the likeness of the lines speaking for itself. 1) "Sleep in peace: thus happy hast thou prov'd Thou mightst have died more known, not more belov'd." 2) "Who herein hast forever happy prov'd: In life thou livdst, in death thou died belov'd." 3) "In this his life and death was countervail'd, He justly liv'd belov'd, he died bewail'd." Number One is by John Ford, a Memorial on Sir Thomas Overbury, 1613. Number Three is by John Ford, an Elegy for the Earle of Devonshire, 1606. Number Two is by the unknown W.S., the Funeral Elegy for William Peter, 1612. If the Funeral Elegy was not written by John Ford, and some strong evidence for that has been published on this line, then coincidence has got the upper hand of us and we may quit the human study of comparative literature and roll over for Shaxicon and happily receive his tickling and harness that would yoke Shakespeare to the pitiful sonambulistic work of the unknown W.S. An epitaph on Shaxicon: "He was belov'd by some, for that he prov'd, Shakespeare could write verse, even when he snoozed." (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 2 Apr 1996 18:23:07 -0800 Subject: Remedies In 1568 (?) was published "The Seconde parte of the Secrets of Maister Alexis of Piemont...", translated by William Warde. For what it was worth to Shakespeare, and to us, here are some of the secrets. "Remedie to cure the tooth ache: Boyle frogges with water and vinegar, and wash your mouth with the decoction...." "To make hair grow: Take three quicke frogges, and burne them alive in a potte, and mingle the ashes that you make of them with honey or with tarre, which is far better, and rubbe the place with it where you see there groweth no hair, and in short space it will grow abundantly." "To take wartes from the hands: Take earth and knead it with dogs pisse, and lay it upon the wartes, and they will dry up and consume away." A lead comb will also make the hair grow. Frogs and dog's urine may not be too difficult to come by, except that you might need a lot of frogs if you have rotting teeth and bad breath: "Take a hundred frogs, and dry them all night in an oven, so that they may be made into a powder...." Or perhaps you would wish to look younger, and dye your gray hair black: "Take leeches or blood suckers, and let them rot the space of three score days in red wine...." The ladies, of course, would like to lose a little weight, and there is an easy secret to take the appetite away. "Take a little green basil, and when men bring the dishes to the table, put it underneath them, that the woman perceive it not: for men say that she will eat of none of that which is in the dish where under the basil lyeth." Do you live in a place where you fear violence in the streets? This might be better than pepper spray: "For to make that wilde beastes shall not hurt you For to be assured and safe from wild beastes, as Wolves, Beares, and such other like, take the grease of a Lion, and anoynt your self therewith over and over, and go hardly where you will, and no beast shall hurt you, but as soon as they smell the savor of the grease, they will run away. And if by chance you meet with a Wolf, or other wilde beast, run not away, but with a good courage go even to him, that he may smell the grease that you are anoynted withal, and he will flee." Ah if life were so easy -- simply render a lion into grease and smear yourself with it. Other dangers are not so easily avoided, the ingrediants not to be bought at the pharmacy. "Take a great foul called a Vultur, and take the skin of her right heel...." "Take the heart of an Ape, and lay it under your head, when you go to bed...." "Take the tooth or the left leg of a Badger..." "Take a blacke Dogge, and plucke out one of his eyes, and hold it in your left hand...." "Take the gall of a he Goat, or of a she Goat, but the he Goat is better, and doeth it sooner, and rubbe your eyebrows...." "Take great green Lizards or sea Frogs, and cut off their heads and their tails, and dry the rest in an oven." I don't think we can use any of the above, the SPCA would be all over us. However, the first secret in the book is the best, and if Shakespeare plucked and sharpened his own quills, perhaps he had need to make his own ink, and here's one way it might be done. "To make blacke Inke very good. Take a pound and a half of rain water, with three ounces of the weightiest Galls you can find, bruise them into small pieces, and pour them into the said water, and let it stand two days in the sun. Then put to it two ounces of Romaine vitriol well coloured and beaten small, and mire all well together with a stick of a fig tree, and leave it again two days more in the sun. Finally put to it an ounce of gum Arabic, that is clear and bright, and beaten to powder, and an ounce of the pill of Pomgranades, and then boil it a little with a slow fire: that done strain it, and keep it in a vessel of Lead or glass, and it will be very blacke and perfect good." To think of it -- Shakespeare shopping about for weighty gall bladders, needing a supply of black ink. "Let there be gall enough in thy ink, though thou write with a goose-pen, no matter...." T. Night iii, 2, 52 "I'll drink the words you send, Though ink be made of gall...." Cymbeline i, 1, 101 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 06:49:10 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0257 Re: Physical Size of Elizabethans Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0257. Wednesday, 3 April 1996. (1) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 2 Apr 1996 08:15:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0250 Re: Physical Size of Elizabethans (2) From: Brooke Brod Date: Tuesday, 2 Apr 1996 20:57:44 -0500 Subj: Re: Physical Size (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 2 Apr 1996 08:15:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0250 Re: Physical Size of Elizabethans Ron Dwelle; I found your information regarding the laws of breeding quite interesting, particularly that behavior "enlarges" along with physiology when creatures cross-breed. It has been my understanding that inbreeding, that is, breeding within too limited a gene pool, inclines towards instability of temperament, the mad genius, as well as a variety of physical problems. During the two years I spent on a Mediterranean island in my youth I came to know several members of an aristocracy that had, according to report, intermarried among only eight families for some four hundred years, and the physical results were evident, shared to some extent by every member of the family I saw, buck teeth, receeding jaw, unusual ears and protruding eyes. Some pictures of English aristocrats from the renaissance period seem to me to show the same characteristics, particularly those from the time of Hans Holbein who, unlike so many Court painters, told the truth with his brush. The only one that comes to mind is Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, the poet, who has the same look about him as the aristocrats of my acquaintance, though not to such an extreme. Since the English aristocracy spent a good deal of their time breeding the best possible horses and dogs for the hunt, they would probably be more aware than most of us today of these laws of breeding. In their search for appropriate mates I would think they would have taken this into consideration along with blood lines and dowries. As for the enlarged behavior caused by cross-breeding, it has been my experience, in humans at least, that it tends to give an expanded world view and a tendency to think for oneself, that could well appear anarchic to members of more limited gene groups. Stephanie Hughes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brooke Brod Date: Tuesday, 2 Apr 1996 20:57:44 -0500 Subject: Re: Physical Size Although people may have been smaller (I am not coming down on any particular side) it seems to me that the clothes were larger. Women's clothing in particular with its wide skirts and crinolines, must have taken up more room that the clothing available to women today. What the Elizbethans lacked in stature they made up for in their clothes. It must have been a very tight fit at the Old Globe. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 06:50:40 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0258 Schoenbaum Memorial Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0258. Wednesday, 3 April 1996. From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 02 Apr 96 15:41:00 PST Subject: Schoenbaum Memorial A Memorial Service for Sam Schoenbaum will be held in the Reading Room of the Folger Library on Saturday, May 4, at 4 PM. At that time there will be a presentation of the festschrift, just published, in honor of Sam. Folger readers should note that the Reading Rooms will be open that day from 9 until 1 only. (A reminder that rare materials must be requested ahead of time during the week. If you are not a registered reader, please call David Ressa, the Registrar, at 202-675-0306 during the week to inquire about procedures.) Thanks to those who have been sending in their remembrances of Sam; I'm making a collection and will pass them along to Marilyn. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 06:54:46 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0259 LISTSERV Maintenance Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0259. Wednesday, 3 April 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, April 3, 1996 Subject: LISTSERV Maintenance Dear SHAKSPEReans: During the next few days, LISTSERV may be down for a few hours at a time for maintenance -- we're finally going to try to solve the addressing problem that some of us have. If your submission to SHAKSPER is rejected, either send it directly to me or wait a few hours and re-submit. Hardy M. Cook Editor========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 09:33:14 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0260 Re: The Future Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0260. Thursday, 4 April 1996. (1) From: Charles S. Ross Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 08:11:04 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0255 Re: The Future (2) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 09:20:46 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0255 Re: The Future (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles S. Ross Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 08:11:04 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0255 Re: The Future To follow up Porter Jamison's examples of unknown words: The first question I had last semester teaching The Taming of the Shrew was "What's a rogue?" from an otherwise educated young person in the front row. I wasn't ready for it and had to apologize after class from my insensitive response (whatever it was). Charles Ross Purdue (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 09:20:46 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0255 Re: The Future Porter Jamison writes: "My question is what should we do to reach them, other than sharing our own love of language and encouraging its growth in them? These kids are amazed by these characters and delight in the stories, but without basic vocabulary (or the desire to attain it) are we teachers limited to video interpretations, Cliff's Notes, and three-month discussion series?" As a teacher of voice and text, I find my acting students struggling INTENSELY to make sense of the language that they "don't own". One simple game we now play is to use language that seems unfamiliar to us in colloquial, or everyday phrasing. e.g. - A student couldn't make sense of a simple "Lo" at the beginning of a speech. She looked it up (dictionary skills are VERY poor too) and decided that "Look! See! Behold!" was appropriate in this case - at least as a starting point. However, even when this student UNDERSTOOD the word, she felt she couldn't use it without having to "think" Look! underneath it. So.... we began to play with Lo!, making up phrases, often silly ones, like "Lo! my homework is finished!" or "Lo! Doesn't he look scrumptious!" Having done this exercise with EVERY word that was even vaguely unfamiliar - words that were understood but not in daily usage - the actor began to feel she "owned" this piece of Shakespeare turf. It seems so simple to me - I have always played these games with language - but it seems that many of my students have not. Once introduced to the potential fun of language, of the detective work of research and the pleasure of playing a phrase from understanding rather than ignorance, Shakespeare becomes a friend, a colleague to the actors process. I think it is wrong to say that those unversed in Shakespeare or other classics don't know how to play with language - they just don't know how to play with THIS language. The unfamiliarity seems to scare them off... playing with it seems to break down the fears. Eric Armstrong The School of Dramatic Art University of Windsor, Canada ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 09:37:43 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0261 Re: RSC MND Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0261. Thursday, 4 April 1996. (1) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 08:25:27 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0255 Re: RSC MND (2) From: Russell A Pitts Date: Wednesday, 03 Apr 1996 12:46:48 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0255 Re: RSC MND (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 08:25:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0255 Re: RSC MND Michael Sharpston; In recent years I have seen way too much nonessential sexual business in productions of Shakespeare and other early plays, way too much goosing, crotch grabbing, pelvis waggling, and suggestions that characters are about to go backstage and pounce on each other, business that isn't required by the story, and is added probably only to relieve the company of the panic induced by the need to make antique language come to life, a cheap and easy way (they hope) to get laughs, if not comprehension. In a recent production of A Chaste Maid in Cheapside put on by a local university company there were two totally unnecessary incidents involving the zippers on male characters' trousers (never mind that zippers didn't exist in the seventeenth century). Although grateful for a chance to see an old play brought to life, I wished that the director had exerted a rather firmer control on the over-the-top characterizations of his actors, none of which meshed with each other, and which turned the play into one long incomprehensible Three Stooges routine. As for Oberon, I believe Shakespeare's portrayal derived from the romance Huon of Burdeux, translated from the French by Lord Berners in 1535. Oberon's nature, his manipulation of those mortals he takes an interest in, his kinglike nobility coupled with pride and jealousy, are the same as in Huon. Oberon puts in an earlier STAGE appearance in James IV, published as the work of Robert Greene, in which he plays much the same role as he does in MSND, observing the depressing behavior of mortals from his elfin vantage point, in this case with a surly hermit (an early Jacques, as one commentator pointed out) rather than a Puck-like figure. Although there is much same-sex innuendo in early Shakespeare (the pirate Anthony and Sebastian in TN, the merchant Anthony and Bassiano in MOV) and in numerous other plays of the period, there is none given by the author between Oberon and Puck, nor between Oberon and Bohan in James IV, nor between Oberon and any character in Huon of Burdeux (though one may wonder why Oberon loves Huon so desperately; but then, everybody loved Huon). The test is always, does the business forward the action and the sense of the play for the majority of the audience? (Certainly one would leave out all sexual innuendo when staging Shakespeare for grammar schools.) Anything that causes the audience to pull back from the trance of "disbelief suspension" that makes an event of a play, is out of place and should be trashed. Stephanie Hughes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russell A Pitts Date: Wednesday, 03 Apr 1996 12:46:48 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0255 Re: RSC MND M. Sharpston comments that this production of MND raises the issue of the sexual realtionship between Oberon and Puck. He also asks if there is any basis for the relationship. In my current research on the origins of MND I have concluded there is the possibility of a relationship, but it is not a sexual one---it is a familial one. There is no textual basis or literary antecedent for anysexual relationship relationship between Oberon and Puck. However, there are fairy tale and folk tale origins that suggest Puck is Oberon's son. For example in Robin Goodfellow Oberon calls Puck from his bed . . . Robin, my sonne, come quickly rise: First stretch, then yawne, and rub your eyes; For thou must go with me tonight, To see, and taste of my delight. Quickly come, my wanton sonne, 'Twere time our sports were now begunne. In the Ballad of Robin Goodfellow Puck's origin is further explained . . . And sundry houses they did use, but one above the rest, Wherein a comely lass did dwell, that pleas'd King Oberon the best. This lovely damsel, neat and faire, so courteous, meek, and mild, As sayes my booke, by Oberon she was begot with child. Both can be found in Halliwell's Illustrations of the Fairy Mythology of A Midsummer Night's Dream, AMS Press, 1970. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:43:00 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0262 Re: Shrew Induction Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0262. Thursday, 4 April 1996. (1) From: Jeff Myers Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 08:31:08 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0254 Q: Shrew Induction (2) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 09:04:19 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0254 Shrew Induction (3) From: Juul Muller Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 19:44:55 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0254 Qs: Shrew Induction (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 08:31:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0254 Q: Shrew Induction The Stratford Festival in Canada sells a videotape of a delightful production of _Shrew_ that includes (I believe) all of the Sly material. Jeff Myers (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 09:04:19 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0254 Shrew Induction I saw a marvelous production at the RSC a few years ago which featured the induction. The "concept" of the play was that a bunch of "Sloan Rangers" - young, rich Brit society types - had hired a group of actors to do the play - and as a prank before the show began, kidnapped Sly. The set was essentially a wood panelled drawing room of a rich kids house. Many of the smaller roles were played by the rich kids with the sides in hand. This was an EXTREMELY effective production in my mind, and I really enjoyed it. The framing device carried through the play and it made sense - and seemed to underline the class/political differences the director chose - the 'working class' nature of the actors was in high contrast to the snobbery and silliness of the 'artistocractic' kids. It also allowed the company to feature a whole gang of young actors. Eric Armstrong The School of Dramatic Art University of Windsor, Canada (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juul Muller Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 19:44:55 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0254 Qs: Shrew Induction Yes, I've seen Shrew done with the Induction and everything else, by De Appel, an innovative Dutch theatre group. This particular production was in the late Seventies and Sly did indeed remain on stage, watching quietly from a corner, when not "on" Mostly, we forgot about him but when he returned at the end, my then- teenage children said "What a pity it was all a dream! Even though the title says it is, one believes in the story." I agree. It is a bit of a letdown, leaving one back in the real world rather than in fairlyland. Has anyone managed to avoid that? Julie Muller Hogeschool Holland Diemen (Amsterdam) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:53:11 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0263 Re: Girl Actors; Vocabulary; Size; Othello and Mulberried Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0263. Thursday, 4 April 1996. (1) From: Peter S. Donaldson Date: Wednesday, 03 Apr 96 08:39:07 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0254 Q: Girl Actors (2) From: Ian Lancashire Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 10:40:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shakespeare's vocabulary (3) From: Michael Best Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 08:16:26 -0800 Subj: Size of Elizabethans (4) From: Suzanne Westfall Date: Wednesday, 03 Apr 1996 15:53:58 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Othello and Mulberried (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter S. Donaldson Date: Wednesday, 03 Apr 96 08:39:07 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0254 Q: Girl Actors The part of Romeo in Bellini's I Capuletti e Montecchi was written as a "breech" role for female voice. The libretto derives, however, not from Shakespeare but from Shakespeare's source. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian Lancashire Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 10:40:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare's vocabulary My colleague H. Joachim Neuhaus at Muenster wrote recently to report that Shakespeare's vocabulary size is part of the findings of the Shakespeare Database Project there. Dr. Neuhaus says: The Shakespeare Database Project has done antedating research for all Shakespearean lemmata. There have been substantial corrections to OED datings. Since we lemmatized the Shakespeare corpus we know about his vocabulary size, not just his type / token statistics. In our WWW Home-Page there is a project bibliography with references to published work and also the forthcoming CD-ROM. Univ.-Prof. Dr. H. J. Neuhaus Internet: neuhaus@nwz.uni-muenster.de http://ves101.uni-muenster.de (SHAKESPEARE DATABASE) Westf. Wilhelms-Universitaet Johannisstrasse 12-20 D-48143 Muenster, Germany This achievement will help everyone doing research in Shakespearean stylistics and authorship studies ... at least those who are willing to abandon impressionism for a more responsible approach, one that bases conclusions on publicly available data and gives advice on how those conclusions can be shown to be false. To base judgments about Shakespeare's authorship of texts on personal likes and dislikes is an intellectual error akin to the mistakes made by many bard-biographers and exposed by the late, missed Sam Schoenbaum in his wonderful book Shakespeare's Lives. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Best Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 08:16:26 -0800 Subject: Size of Elizabethans Three things we can learn from this thread: 1. We are more interested in the physical size of Elizabethans than in their smell (only a couple of replies [thanks!] to my earlier query, and no hard evidence so far) 2. Those that challenge the accepted evidence show a healthy skepticism of received belief, conditioned as it is by our frames of reference. 3. They are, however, interestingly limited by their own frames of reference. To suggest that only smaller sizes of clothes would survive is to assume the values of a society that throws away or puts aside things that don't fit. In an age when cloth was a valuable and expensive resource, smaller (and larger) sizes would be as efficiently reused as those that needed no alteration. And for Brooke Brod: crinolines are a later invention. Bum-rolls, yes. Michael Best Department of English, University of Victoria, (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Suzanne Westfall Date: Wednesday, 03 Apr 1996 15:53:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Othello and Mulberried Florence Amit's comments on the connection between the Bassano family's heraldic icon (the mulberry) and _Othello_ caught my attention. Last summer I toured the Charterhouse in London, one of the many monasteries that Henry "liberated," giving it afterward to the Bassanos (a family of musicians that he had "raided" from the Doge of Venice) as a London residence. In the courtyard there stands a large and very old mulberry tree. One of the Charterhouse Brothers informed me that the mulberries from the tree have been sent yearly to the Lord mayor since the 14th century, so I assume that the tree predates the Bassanos; but the coincidence is amusing, if not provocative. Regards, Suzanne Westfall Dept. of English, Lafayette College ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:57:04 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0264 Internet Scholarly Editions of Shakespeare; RSA Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0264. Thursday, 4 April 1996. (1) From: Michael Best Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 08:16:34 -0800 Subj: Scholarly Editions of Shakespeare for the Internet (2) From: Paul Budra Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 14:37:10 -0500 Subj: Aldus at the RSA (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Best Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 08:16:34 -0800 Subject: Scholarly Editions of Shakespeare for the Internet SCHOLARLY INTERNET EDITIONS OF SHAKESPEARE ===== AN ANNOUNCEMENT ===== (Please cross-post) In cooperation with the University of Victoria and an Editorial Board of distinguished scholars, I am pleased to announce the creation of a site on the Internet that will be dedicated to providing scholarly editions of Shakespeare's plays. The Internet editions will in due course provide texts of all the plays and poems in modern newly-edited versions. The modern texts will be linked to electronic representations of the original quartos and Folio, and will be fully annotated. They will include supporting source material, a critical survey, a history of performance, and will provide links to external sources where related materials are available elsewhere on the Internet. Eventually the original texts will be available in graphic form. The electronic texts will be made available in a variety of formats: 1. Simple unformatted ASCII text. 2. HTML text for display in a Web browser 3. Text marked up in more detail using SGML (Standarg Generalized Markup Language), suitable for textual analysis, the generation of concordances, and so on. Though not a high priority at the beginning, the site will in due course collect and make available an archive of performance documentation in graphic, sound, and video formats. All materials to be posted on the site will be subject to refereeing to ensure that the highest standard of scholarship is maintained. While the editors may choose to retain copyright on their work, all texts will be made available for educational and non-profit purposes. Further information is available at the site: * An outline of the editorial structure and principles * A list of members of the Editorial Board * A discussion of questions concerning the kinds of tagging that will be of the greatest usefulness for scholars * Some sample pages of a text (_Romeo and Juliet_) in a possible HTML format for Web browsing I welcome questions, comments and suggestions. Please visit the site. Michael Best Department of English, University of Victoria, Victoria B.C. V8W 3W1, Canada. email: URL: Coordinating Editor, Internet Editions of Shakespeare URL: (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Budra Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 14:37:10 -0500 Subject: Aldus at the RSA [This announcement appeared on FICINO. --HMC] Simon Fraser University will be hosting the Renaissance Society of America annual meeting on April 3-6th, 1997. The university has just acquired 106 volumes from the Aldine press. These volumes have never been available to scholars before now. To celebrate this event, the program committee for the RSA '97 meeting would like to solicit papers on Aldus and his successors with the hope of mounting a special session on Renaissance Italian printing. Please send ten copies of an abstract for a proposed paper to Paul Budra, Dept. of English Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Vancouver V5A 1S6 by May 1st. If you cannot meet this deadline, please e-mail Prof. Budra at budra@sfu.ca. Enquires about the SFU Aldus collection should be directed to the university rare book librarian, Ralph Stanton: stanton@sfu.ca PLEASER FORWARD THIS MESSAGE ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:22:16 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0265 Hello from the Sixth World Shakespeare Congress Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0265. Tuesday, 9 April 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, April 9, 1996 Subject: Hello from the Sixth World Shakespeare Congress Dear SHAKSPEReans, Hello from the Sixth World Shakespeare Congress. I would like to thank SHAKSPEReans Lois Feuer (Cal State University Dominquez Hill) and Jan Strim (UCLA) and Lynn Anderson (Academic Computing CSUDH) for enabling me to communicate with my home account so that I can edit the SHAKSPER digests from LA. As many of you have probably figured out, LISTSERV was down from Thursday through Monday. The System Manger has finally gotten time to try to resolve some of the problems we have been having with LISTSERV. Last week, I announced that LISTSERV would be down for an hour or two; from now on if I make other such announcements please be prepared for the possiblity of LISTSERV's being down for several days -- technology as it is. The World Shakespeare Congress program is very rich, and I have plans that will occupy me much of the time I am here. I will, nevertheless, edit the digests as time permits. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:42:46 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0266 S. Schoenbaum Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0266. Tuesday, 9 April 1996. From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 4 Apr 1996 21:40:48 +0200 Subject: S. Schoenbaum What I remember best and most gratefully about S. Schoenbaum, as he liked to sign himself, was his generous respect for people who were only beginning the path of scholarship that he had already walked with distinction. I was at the Folger in 1967 and working on the text of *Julius Caesar*, very insecure in this dimension of scholarship so new to me. Sam was at the Folger a good deal at that time, at work on *Shakespeare's Lives* which would appear in 1970. We talked sometimes in the Founder's Room or at lunch in the old Supreme Court Cafeteria and he took me seriously when I myself had doubt that I ought to be taken seriously. He was a good listener and a witty conversationalist, with a penetrating acuity and a vast store of knowledge about the history of Shakespeare scholarship. When he invited me to Northwestern to address his graduate seminar about the design of *Julius Caesar*, it was one of the great moments of my life. Now, nearly 30 years later, when I remember to honor in eager beginners the scholars they will become, I sometimes pause to recall Sam Schoenbaum, who left me a pattern I have tried to follow. John W. Velz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:08:44 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0267 Re: Future; RSC MND; The List; Size Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0267. Tuesday, 9 April 1996. (1) From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 96 19:22:25 UT Subj: RE: SHK 7.0255 Re: The Future (2) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Thursday, 4 Apr 1996 14:45:44 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0255 Re: RSC MND (3) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 5 Apr 1996 18:39:47 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0178 Re: About This List (4) From: Richard Kennedy Date: Monday, 8 Apr 1996 16:04:37 -0700 Subj: Size of Elizabethans (1)------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 96 19:22:25 UT Subject: RE: SHK 7.0255 Re: The Future To Porter Jamison What means "advanced visual interpretive skills"? I've got an analysis of the problem - entitled "Pseudo Literacy" and will E-Mail it to you if you wish. Harvey Wheeler verulan@msn.com (2)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Shirley Kagan Date: Thursday, 4 Apr 1996 14:45:44 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0255 Re: RSC MND Regarding a sexual relationship between Oberon and Puck, my question is why shouldn't there be one? If the forest has been set up as a place of sensuality and sexual license, which it has in the current production of MND, then where's the problem? And why should it matter if Puck is male or female? When a director decides to interpret a play shouldn't s/he be entitled to call upon whatever character relationships are available to support the procduction concept, regardless of historical accuracy or propriety? Sincerely, Shirley Kagan. (3)----------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 5 Apr 1996 18:39:47 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0178 Re: About This List Bill Godshalk wrote > If you don't like it, don't read it. If you like it a little bit, skim it. Maybe I'm being dim, but how do you know you don't like it until you've read it? If I had the capacity to filter out all the things I don't want to read, I wouldn't need the editors of scholarly journals to do this for me. (Ditto the organizers of conferences, the editors of books, etc). What's the point of book reviews? Why have entry requirements for degree courses? Why not just walk into any bar and discuss your subject with whoever is in there? You can always filter out the rubbish, apparently. Gabriel Egan (4)----------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Kennedy Date: Monday, 8 Apr 1996 16:04:37 -0700 Subject: Size of Elizabethans If it's truely important, couldn't we just dig up a few bones and measure them? Correction: Black ink was made from oak galls, not gall bladders. Those who tried it with gall bladders will be reimbursed. Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:25:32 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0268 Re: Shrew Induction Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0268. Tuesday, 9 April 1996. (1) From: Robert Teeter Date: Thursday, 4 Apr 1996 23:04:16 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0254 Qs: Shrew Induction (2) From: David S. Raley Date: Wednesday, 03 Apr 1996 20:06:55 -0500 Subj: Shrew Induction (3) From: Roger Gross Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 17:28:28 -0600 (CST) Subj: Shrew with the full Sly (1)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Teeter Date: Thursday, 4 Apr 1996 23:04:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0254 Qs: Shrew Induction > From: Mike Field > Date: Monday, 1 Apr 1996 16:27:34 -0500 > Subject: Shrew Induction > > I wonder who out there has seen Shrew done with the Christopher Sly induction, > the interludes and the epilogue (which all occur as an appendix in the Arden > edition)? Anyone? Does Sly stay on stage the whole time? Does this framing > device distance the story of Kate and Petruchio from us? To what purpose? The last time _Taming_ was staged at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, Ashland, they did use the Sly material. Sly, played by Douglas Markkanen, remained in the above area throughout the play. He mostly slept during the body of the play, when the spotlight was off of him. Robert Teeter rteeter@netcom.com (2)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David S. Raley Date: Wednesday, 03 Apr 1996 20:06:55 -0500 Subject: Shrew Induction I have only seen Shrew on stage once (Hofstra, 1980, Patrick Duffy as Petruchio). In that production, they included as much of the Sly story as I have ever heard about (the Induction, a couple interludes, and the Epilogue). Whether it was everything from the Arden edition or not, I cannot say (my editions of the play have the Induction, but not the Epilogue). Sly did stay around during the first act (no way to avoid that), but I cannot remember what they did with him afterwards. I think they kept him behind the lower level curtain (they used a Globe Stage) until he was needed. The main problem is where you can permanently place someone without getting in the way of everyone else. I have seen the same problem encountered with Titania, but one can generally take more liberties with her than with Sly (lifting Titania in a flower works; doing the same for Sly doesn't). { DSR (3)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Gross Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 17:28:28 -0600 (CST) Subject: Shrew with the full Sly Mike Field asks about productions of SHREW with the compleat set of Sly scenes. I have directed SHREW three times and produced two other productions. Each of these used the full dose of Sly. I and the man who directed the two productions I produced are convinced that the show is much better with them. First of all, they are funny. Audiences find them as funny as the Petruchio/Kate stuff or the ridiculous-old-fart scenes. One of the funniest moments in the show, in fact, is a Sly bit which isn't part of the biblical SHREW text...you have to go to the Ur=Shrew for it (or, as you say, the Arden; thank you Arden). It's when Sly jumps on the stage (as I imagine it) and interferes with the activity ("I say we'll have no sending to prison....I tell thee, Sim, we'll have no sending to prison, that's flat. Why, am not I Don Christo Vary? Therefore I say they shall not go to prison." and the audience cheers. It's something most of us have wanted to do...jump on stage and turn the melodrama into a romance. OK...I do it because it is funny stuff. But it also has a nicely Brechtian effect of reminding us of the levels of pretense. And it gives us an ending that is both beautiful (in an admittedly coarse sort of way) and reminds us what the play-within has been about. And, I think, it makes a subtle argument for the moral-teaching function of drama...a good Renaissancish thing to do. In the staging, the crucial thing is to locate Sly and his lady love in a place that allows them to easily disappear and re-appear with ease. The director needs some nuance in manipulating the audience's memory and sight of Sly. It doesn't work for Sly to have to move more than, say, to rise and sit. In most cases, I have chosen to put him on a specially built 6 x 8 substage, downstage of the 'real' stage and at least 2 1/2 feet lower. He sits/lies on a chaise most of the time with his lady. Be sure Sly has a deeply rooted likeability. He's a familiar type, the drunken charmer. If you want to know more, feel free to contact me. Nice. You've made me remember the wonderful actors who have played Sly for me. PS Be sure the Duke is likeable, too. There is some danger of his seeming like a sadist in his manipulations of Sly. He'd better seem fundamentally good and kind or one of the play's foundation stones will crumble. Roger Gross U. of Arkansas ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:54:14 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0269 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0269. Tuesday, 9 April 1996. (1) From: Leo Daugherty Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 23:42:34 GMT Subj: Funeral Elegy (and Sonnets) (2) From: Richard J. Kennedy Date: Monday, 8 Apr 1996 08:36:35 -0700 Subj: Funeral Elegy (1)-------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leo Daugherty Date: Wednesday, 3 Apr 1996 23:42:34 GMT Subject: Funeral Elegy (and Sonnets) I've been following the FUNERAL ELEGY discussion on SHAKSPER for the past three months with a particularly high level of interest -- for reasons I'll make clear. In deciding to join the discussion now, I'm mindful of the fact that I have too much to say -- especially about my own history of working with the poem, but also about the the response to the Shakespeare attribution since the mainstream media got interested -- to say all of it in one long posting. Boring people blind with such a posting -- both figuratively and (because of the discomfort/tediousness of reading long texts on computer screens) LITERALLY as well, would be discourteous and unhelpful to my purposes. Instead, I'm going to make three or four separate responsive postings in the next few days, of which this is the first. What I'll include today is (a.) this preface, and (b.) the text of my brief Respondent's paper, given this past December at the MLA session ("Another Shakespeare") at which Shakespeare's authorship of the poem was first "officially" claimed. I'll then follow up with more FE-related postings on some other topics recently dealt with here: Stylometry/Shaxicon, other possible authors (Ford, Strode, Wastell, and so forth), the "aesthetic quality" of the poem, the funeral elegy genre, etc.). I first read FUNERAL ELEGY in 1978 at the Bodleian, and suspected that Shakespeare was its poet, while on sabbatical leave to Oxford, where I had gone with the main intent of studying British statistical methods of authorship determination -- e.g., the methods of Andrew Morton, the late Sidney Michaelson, Anthony Kenny, Tom Merriam, and so on, some "Stylometric" and some not. (Like many SHAKSPEReans, I teach Shakespeare and related topics in college. My main research/critical interest is the nondramatic poetry.) I subsequently examined and researched the poem further while there again on sabbatical in 1983, and then once more in 1989 (this time just on vacation). Knowing of my long involvement with the poem (because we'd been corresponding for years), Don Foster asked me in early 1995 to serve as Respondent for the then-upcoming MLA session on FUNERAL ELEGY. Our Moderator was Stephen Booth, and the paper-presenters were Don, Lars Engle, and Rick Abrams. As of now, these papers await publication; and, as SHAKSPEReans know, Don has sworn off further participation in the Hyperspace Tilts until his new work on the attribution gets into print. (A little of it has indirectely gone into print already, however, via Rick Abrams' letters-to-the-editor exchanges in the TLS with Stanley Wells and Brian Vickers in the past couple of months -- exchanges which Abrams has decidedly "won," having the evidence on his side and being able to argue from it clearly and cogently. But there is a good bit more to come.) On the day of the MLA session, a longish front-page feature story appeared on it in the CHICAGO SUN-TIMES. About two weeks later, another story on it appeared in the LA TIMES. Then came the front-page coverage in the NEW YORK TIMES, which in turn seems to have generated all the subsequent stories -- AP, Reuters, the major TV network and cable news programs, the PBS "News Hour," NPR, AP Network News (radio), PEOPLE magazine, and so on. Today, three months after the panel, "mainstream" interest has of course subsided, and the scholars/critics are beginning to go to work seriously on the evidence underlying the authorship claim. We have seen the beginnings of this here on SHAKSPER, and I hope the discussion continues and stays lively. (This is something I'll say more about in another posting -- as it relates to the FUNERAL ELEGY discussion's connection to the question of "splitting the list," which I oppose.) Meanwhile, I frankly see myself as being in the enviable position of having already done that work -- having already spent 18 years with the poem off and on (including the now-familiar questions of statistical methodology, John Ford, the poem's "aesthetic quality," and so on -- and thus of not being forced to play catch-up now. As those of you now seriously engaged in that catch-up work will understand all too well (because the issues are tough and some of the prerequisite backgrounding unspeakably tedious), I am very glad of this. Anyway, as a radical skeptic (and a "Schoenbaumian" one, in terms of Shakespeare studies), I strongly believe the following three things to be true: 1. The evidence that Shakespeare wrote FUNERAL ELEGY is overwhelming. 2. Good evidence that anyone else wrote it (John Ford, Simon Wastell, or whoever) is nonexistent. (It once seemed that William Strachey might be a fair long shot bet -- a possibility Don dealt with in great detail in his late-'80s book ELEGY BY W.S., itself a revised version of his doctoral dissertation -- but subsequent work has strengthened the Shakespeare claim and weakened the Strachey claim, itself already weak to begin with.) 3. Those who have thus far written in opposition to Don's claim -- including the (few) reviewers of his book, the British TLS letter writers, and the energetic folk here on SHAKSPER -- have simply not engaged the evidence. (This includes the most recent entrant into the lists, the estimable K. Duncan-Jones.) When they do -- and it will admittedly take them a lot of time and labor, not all of it pleasurable (see above) -- my best guess is that they'll come to support the attribution. (This will of course not be the case for those whose ideological investments -- e.g., Oxfordianism, Baconianism, Marlovianism, or whatever, just to use the example of "rival-claimantism" -- prevent them from seeing, in Schoenbaum's always timely words, "what is there.") I'm appending the text of my MLA Respondent's paper. Thanks for reading, Leo Daugherty "Another Shakespeare": Respondent's Paper 1. My response to what we have heard will be short -- and, as it happens, sweet. I'm guessing that you would rather have some time yourselves, here at theend, to respond to the presenters -- and to this extraordinary claim itself -- than listen to me say in words bound to be redundant (albeit "varying to other words," in the language of Sonnet 105) why I think they're right. 2. I have been interested in the possible attribution of this poem to Shakespeare since first coming upon it in the Bodleian in 1978, now over seventeen years ago. When Don Foster's book appeared in the late '80s, with its massive presentation of the evidence to date, I became nearly convinced and told him so. His later three conference papers, one at the annual meeting of the Shakespeare Association of America and two (including this one) at MLA, along with his pieces in THE SHAKESPEARE NEWSLETTER, have only strengthened my conviction that Shakespeare wrote this funeral elegy for his recently murdered young friend Will Peter. 3. Don's work on this poem -- his book and subsequent papers -- appeared at a particularly inopportune time. The 1980s and early '90s saw several other whole-work attributions to Shakespeare -- by Merriam, Levi, Sams, Charles Hamilton, and (most infamously) Taylor -- none of which seemed convincing on the basis of the evidence produced. And Don's work suffered because of its inevitable association with those other claims. But the case of this elegy by one W.S. is an altogether different and that is because of the extremely high quality of the evidence brought forth for its attribution -- and, in a lesser but still compelling way, by the absence of any good evidence at all to the contrary. In fact, the evidence I speak of, including what we have heard here today, is by now overwhelming. I think I have examined all of it, and I think I have done so skeptically -- and, to use an old-fashioned and justifiably suspicious-sounding word, "disinterestedly." You will of course not want to take my word for this, and I thus make a point of inviting you to read Don's book, to seek out the few papers presented and published since on this attribution by Don and others, and to think hard about what you've heard here. 3. As to the papers themselves: I agree with Stephen Booth about the tough issues which this poem, when taken as by Shakespeare, presents to us; but I disagree with him, and side rather with Rick Abrams, about the poem's quality. It has been argued by Mac Jackson that the poem's language is "un-Shakespearean," particularly in its lack of "poetic imagery"; and I think Steven Booth, although he does not quarrel with the attribution, agrees that this is not poetic language of the kind we expect from Shakespeare. But W.S.is here constrained not only by the funeral elegy conventions of his day (the linguistic effects of which do not much please us now), but also by the (typically flattening) attempt at High Seriousness itself. In fact, what we see here is the very language of another poem few people today like much, itself constrained by just such presently unfashionable conventions and just such High Seriousness -- THE RAPE OF LUCRECE. Lars Engle is certainly right in making his linkage between this elegy and the Sonnets. And he usefully brings the perceptual problems posed by Wittgenstein's duck-rabbit to bear on the experience of reading the elegy at this moment as Shakespeare's -- noting that the poem flickers back and forth as Shakespearean/non-Shakespearean before our eyes as we read it. But so do LUCRECE and and A Lover's Complaint -- or would, rather, if we were not so sure that Shakespeare wrote them. (And bear in mind, too, that most of the faith we now place in Shakespeare's authorship of A Lover's Complaint comes from a source to which many of us have been for too long averse -- quantitative methods, i.e., counting.) 4. In the end, the shocking and amazing fact is that Shakespeare, in early 1612, soon to turn 48, wrote this very conventional, yet very personal, poem -- and that he had it published soon afterward in London by Thomas Thorpe, the man who had published his Sonnets three years earlier -- and that we are just now finding out that he did so as we near the year 2000. This is a fact which, to say the least, will take some getting used to. But get used to it we eventually will. (2)-------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J. Kennedy Date: Monday, 8 Apr 1996 08:36:35 -0700 Subject: Funeral Elegy Possibly there will never be any proof of who wrote the Funeral Elegy, but it seems nearly impossible that Shakespeare wrote it, and a close certainty that John Ford did. The proofs that SHAXICON offers for Shakespeare is disputed by the Claremont McKenna College program commanded by Ward Elliott to search the Elegy for those certain wordprints that would lead us to suspect Shakespeare as the author. It doesn't. But aside from that, there is no connection at all between Shakespeare and Devonshire and the William Peter family, and we have full knowlege that John Ford was a Devonshire man and a friend of the William Peter family. More than that, he was an aspiring poet who was adept and eager for the writing of memorials, such as those for the Earle of Devonshire and Sir Thomas Overbury, those poems offering nearly identical lines to the Funeral Elegy. More than that, the psychological profile of the author that Don Foster and Richard Abrams draw up fits very well with what is known of John Ford's life, his deep strain of melancholy, his piety, and his singular life. His poems also mirror that almost obsessive touchiness about Honor and Name that we find in the Elegy, his guard and warding off of spite, slander, and malice suffered by the deceased, bequeathing his poetry in defense of the utterless dead, who were in fact innocent of all fault or blame, closer to saints than to common humanity. John Ford, like the writer of the Funeral Elegy, was a moralistic owl and something of a preacher, thumping his text like he's in the pulpit, bad poetry all of it, giving out his dozing and godawful long sermons, self-serving himself in the company of deceased Earls and Knights, basking under the halo he patches up for the misused dead, taking their abuse to illustrate his own abuse. But God will at last sort it all out, and put all right, and at last it will be prov'd that anyone John Ford touches with his pen died belov'd -- although greviously misunderstood. That's the theme of John Ford and the writer of the Funeral Elegy. The excitement in the first place was the finding of the initials W.S. on the title page of the Elegy, which initials were no doubt noticed many times before and tested with a reading of the. Elegy to discover if Shakespeare had anything to do with it. As Katherine Duncan-Jones says, it would need but a "few minutes' perusal" of the Elegy to set aside all doubt that Shakespeare was not in the neighborhood. But who was W.S.? Possibly the man for whom John Ford wrote the elegy. Or possibly, as has been suggested, it was a deception to cash in on Shakespeare's name. That would have been nothing new. John Taylor (1580-1653), the "Water Poet", was a Thames boatman, who must many times have ferried Shakespeare across the river. As a poet, he was of the second water, but was popular and wrote a good amount of verse and satire. In his "Taylor's Pastorall", 1624, he writes an "Epistle to the Reader", and amongst other notes for the record, he also says this, (understanding that "I" and "J" were interchangeable): "And this Advertisement more I give the Reader, that there are many things Imprinted under the name of two Letters, I.T. for some of which I have beene taxed to be the Author: I assure the world that I had never any thing imprinted of my writing, that I was either afraid or ashamed to set my name at large to it; and therefore if you see any Authors name I.T. I utterly disclaime it: for I am as I have bin, both I. and T. which with additions of Letters, is yours to be commanded in any laudable endevours, IOHN TAYLOR" The shame of the Funeral Elegy is that the marketplace may have been glanced at when putting William Peter to rest. And the greater shame is that Shakespeare will not be let to rest, but must be tumbling in his grave to know that some reasonable people otherwise, and lovers of his poetry, are willing to let a machine direct their judgement in this matter. And so it seems that John Ford wrote the Funeral Elegy. I say let him have full credit. He deserves it. His reputation will not be harmed by it, in fact somewhat boosted. It's his kind of thing, and it is no kind of thing that Shakespeare would have written. When it happens that some poets throw away their ears, cut their own noses, and embrace SHAXICON, then we might truely worry that the Elegy could invade the canon, but I have searched the landscape, and it is as barren and empty of poets bringing their reputations to support Don Foster and Richard Abrams as the Elegy is barren of poetry. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 09:47:52 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0270 Qs: Dating Sonnets; Shakespeare and Eliot Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0270. Wednesday, 10 April 1996. (1) From: Peter Herman Date: Monday, 8 Apr 1996 15:14:43 -0400 Subj: [Dating the Sonnets] (2) From: Ron Dwelle Date: Tuesday, 09 Apr 1996 12:32:21 -0700 Subj: Forwarding a student's request (1)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Herman Date: Monday, 8 Apr 1996 15:14:43 -0400 Subject: [Dating the Sonnets] I've just read Prescott, Hiatt, and Hiatt's 1991 article on the dating of the Sonnets. Using all sorts of computer databases, they suggest that Shakespeare wrote most of the sonnets during the early 1590s and then revised them considerably towards the end of his career. They also argue that Q is in fact an authorized edition, and that the "Lover's Complaint" ought to finish out the cycle. Do people accept these theses? Thanks in advance, Peter C. Herman Dept. of English GSU (2)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Dwelle Date: Tuesday, 09 Apr 1996 12:32:21 -0700 Subject: Forwarding a student's request Hello, I am looking for any connections between Shakespeare's "Julius Ceasar" and Eliot's "Hollow Men." I have surfed the net everywhere from Yahoo to who knows who, and I've found no connections!!! If there is anyone out there that can help me, I'd appreciate it greatly!! Thanks! Mary O'Rourke orourkem@river.it.gvsu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 09:52:45 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0271 Re: Clothing Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0271. Wednesday, 10 April 1996. From: James Schaefer Date: Tuesday, 09 Apr 1996 13:53:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject Re: Clothing About the point raised by Brooke Brod regarding the bulk of clothed Elizabethans: I've been struck for a couple years now by the current fashion in young women's clothes for bulky jackets or multi-layered, often colorful, shirts/vests etc. worn over skin-tight tights, providing a silhouette that echoes that of Elizabethan men (e.g., the famous painting of Henry VIII). Even the slashed jeans recalls the slashed sleeves of the doublet. Jim Schaefer ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:05:30 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0272 Re: RSC MND Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0272. Wednesday, 10 April 1996. (1) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Tuesday, 9 Apr 1996 15:00:58 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0261 Re: RSC MND (2) From: Scott Crozier Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 12:05:43 +1000 Subj: Re: RSC MND (1)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Tuesday, 9 Apr 1996 15:00:58 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0261 Re: RSC MND Dear Stephanie Hughes, You recently wrote the following: >The test is always, does the business forward the action and the sense >of the play for the majority of the audience? (Certainly one would leave >out all sexual innuendo when staging Shakespeare for grammar schools.) >Anything that causes the audience to pull back from the trance of >"disbelief suspension" that makes an event of a play, is out of place >and should be trashed. 1) I agree with your first observation entirely. If "business" is not integral to the concept of a production, it shouldn't be included. 2) Why should one leave out all sexual innuendo in productions for grammar school aged children? 3) I'm stunned that you find no room for the elimination of "willing suspension of disbelief" from 20th Century staging. Not every production of every play has to shatter the illusion of theatricality, but surely an audience's self-awareness and its perception of a staged event as "theatre" is one of the most important and wonderful advances made in recent generations! Sincerely, Shirley Kagan. (2)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 12:05:43 +1000 Subject: Re: RSC MND In reply to a number of comments about the relationship between Oberon and Puck, the point should be made that a familial relationship in 1595/6 doesn't really translate all that well in 1996. Furthermore, Oberon's fetish for voyeurism and ready disposal of his wife to an animal raises questions in my mind at least about why he wants the Indian boy in the first place. So where does Puck fit in to this? Surely he isn't a mere messanger. In a forest of sexual licence and magic, I would think that Oberon and Puck had liberty to relate how ever they pleased. Isn't the chaos of such a world something from which the lovers are pleased to retreat at the end of Act 4? Although everyone has a right to their views I was also shocked about the censorship underlying the argument about grammar schools and staging. Regards, Scott Crozier ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:29:26 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0273 Re: Shrew Induction Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0273. Wednesday, 10 April 1996. (1) From: Thomas E. Ruddick Date: Tuesday, 9 Apr 96 21:19:12 EST Subj: RE: SHK 7.0268 Re: Shrew Induction (2) From: Gavin H Witt Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 96 1:07:34 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0268 Re: Shrew Induction (1)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas E. Ruddick Date: Tuesday, 9 Apr 96 21:19:12 EST Subject: RE: SHK 7.0268 Re: Shrew Induction Hello from a newbie--I've already found something to add to this list? There's a *wonderful* videotape of SHREW available from the Stratford, ONT festival! They re-released it last year--originally from around 1981 I think, Len Cariou as Pet. and Sharry Flett as Kate. They did Sly completely, induction, through-scenes (including the "no taking to prison") and epilogue. Sly was put in the balcony with his "wife" throughout, and some scenes (Petrucchio's "If any man know better how to tame a shrew" speech) were played right alongside him. IMO this is the best video performance of Shrew available; on a par with the Kenneth Brannagh film versions (of other Shakespeare plays, I mean). I also saw Shrew just this year at University of Dayton. Sly was onstage the entire time, sitting on the floor downstage right, grabbing arse with every female that came within arm's reach, eating belching and pawing cod and generally ruining the already-bad show with extraneous scene stealing (and he wasn't a good actor either, too amused with himself). The director evidently saw nothing witty in the play, and went for the crudest, coarsest humor possible--lots of upstage extraneous physical comedy, and a climactic scene where Kate and the Widow actually engage in a five-minute catfight on stage (To her, Kate! To her, Widow! {subsequent lines obscured by screaming and cursing}). I leave you to your own conclusions-- TR (Thomas E. Ruddick, Edison Community College [OH]) (2)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gavin H Witt Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 96 1:07:34 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0268 Re: Shrew Induction Regarding productions of _Shrew_ with Induction or more: I saw a wonderful, highly theatrical production done at Catholic U. in about 1988, in which the troupe of actors mingled with the audience beforehand, then segued directly into the Sly material, had the actors very obviously set up a "stage" of painted sheets, then did the play. By several scenes into it, one forgot thte entire framing device, only to be jarred back by the intervention of Sly in their midst. The production also included the closing Sly material from _A Shrew_. It was a delight; poignant, affecting, theatrically vibrant in the best sense. John Barton, of course, staged a famous production of the play in about 1968 using the framing material and a rather faithfully "Elizabethan" setting. Tori Haring_Smith has compiled a highly useful volume of production history on this much-maligned play, which includes a consideration of some noted instances with or without the Sly sections. Gavin Witt UNiversity of Chicago ghwitt@midway.uchicago.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 19:36:19 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0274 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0274. Thursday, 11 April 1996. (1) From: Michael Sharpston Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 08:08:04 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Did the Unabomber Write the Funeral Elegy? (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 09:56:49 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0269 Re: Funeral Elegy (3) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 11 Apr 1996 14:48:57 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0269 Re: Funeral Elegy (1)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Sharpston Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 08:08:04 +0000 (GMT) Subject Did the Unabomber Write the Funeral Elegy? Clearly my title, "Did the Unabomber Write the Funeral Elegy?" is a conflation, as in "1066 And All That" recollections or those of a, like totally challenged high school student of Shakespeare. But there are more serious questions behind it. (a) How does the FBI evidence that Theodore Kaczynski wrote the Unabomber Manifesto compare to the evidence that William Shakespeare wrote the Funeral Elegy? (b) Are the FBI on a better tack in confronting their issue than Foster and Shaxicon? (c) Is the standard of proof being used radically different in the two cases? Presumably "beyond a reasonable doubt" or some such for the FBI case, but what in the case of the Funeral Elegy? I do get the impression that some SHAKSPER participants feel that William Shakespeare is potentially facing charges along the lines of "reckless versifying while in proven possession of better faculties", but perhaps that could be reduced from felony to a misdemeanor. Michael Sharpston msharpston@worldbank.org (2)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 09:56:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0269 Re: Funeral Elegy In response to Leo Daugherty's comment that his "overwhelming evidence" garnered in eighteen years of research will still fail to convince those who hold some preconception such as Oxfordianism, etc.; in the deathless words of the erstwhile mayor of New York City (Wagner) "I reiterate once again what I said before," no "ism" is required to grasp immediately the overwhelming evidence AGAINST Shakespeare's authorship of this poem, which is the profound boredom that assails the reader after the first few stanzas. If with these volumes of evidence, the good professors succeed in leading ALL their colleagues over the cliffs of common sense like so many ivy-clad lemmings, all I can say is I hope they're enjoying themselves. Stephanie Hughes (3)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 11 Apr 1996 14:48:57 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0269 Re: Funeral Elegy Leo Daugherty wrote >1. The evidence that Shakespeare wrote FUNERAL ELEGY is overwhelming. This has been said many times, but without giving us the new evidence. Foster's book cannot be offered in lieu of the new evidence, since it concludes that the authorship is uncertain. What was the point of all the hoo-haa of going public on a claim so long before publication of the evidence? We have been led into the trap of raking over all the old inconclusive evidence and, naturally enough, no consensus has emerged. I disagree with Daugherty that Abrams "won" the TLS exchange, it seemed rather a stalemate. Shouldn't the new evidence have been made available BEFORE victory was claimed? Is there some advantage in doing things the other way round which I have overlooked? Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 19:54:59 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0275 Re: Size; About This List; The Future Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0275. Thursday, 11 April 1996. (1) From: Roger Taylor Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 09:26:27 -0600 (MDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0267 Re: Size (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 16:41:29 -0400 (EDT) Subj: About This List (3) From: John Ramsay Date: Thursday, 11 Apr 1996 00:52:17 -0400 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0260 Re: The Future (1)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Taylor Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 09:26:27 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0267 Re: Size >Subject: Size of Elizabethans > >If it's truly important, couldn't we just dig up a few bones and measure them? Not a very practical idea. Few would not be enough; you could end up with both a giant and a dwarf in your sample. One would have to dig enough to represent a statistical cross section of the population at that time. The earlier comment (made by Michael Best, I think) made a good logical point that I overlooked when I said it...about small clothes not being worn. Touche. Roger Taylor (2)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 16:41:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: About This List Gabriel Egan quotes me: >> If you don't like it, don't read it. If you like it a little bit, skim it. And then adds: >Maybe I'm being dim, but how do you know you don't like it until you've read >it? Okay, Gabriel, I left out a few words. Let's try this: "If you don't like it after reading a few paragraphs, chapters, etc., don't read the whole essay, message, book, etc. If you only like it a little bit after reading a few paragraphs, chapters, etc., skim the rest of it." On the other hand, maybe the essay or book gets really interesting AFTER the first paragraphs or chapters. So, maybe I should skim everything before I decide not to read the essay, etc.. Alfred Harbage used to toss a book in his hand and say, "You have to get to know if it's worth reading without reading it. Otherwise, you'll spend all your time reading." Unfortunately, he never told me how to perform that miracle. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Ramsay Date: Thursday, 11 Apr 1996 00:52:17 -0400 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0260 Re: The Future Unknown Words : Shakespeare's Language in the high school classroom - "pulpit" in JC (III-1) : Brutus : "I will myself into the pulpit first..." I was astonished when a grade 10 student complained that this term was not in the school edition glossary (The student was the son of a former member of my English department, who left high school teaching for a position at the local community college, so I could hardly blame the student's home environment for an impoverished vocabulary) - As to sexual innuendo at the high/grammar school level : R & J (I-1) " draw thy tool ... my naked weapon is out... cut off their heads... or their maidenheads" - I had considerable difficulty convincing one Gr 11 class that the sexual innuendo was intended by Shakespeare and not just in their own prurient minds. John Ramsay Centennial S.S., jramsay@freenet.npiec.on.ca ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:40:50 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0276 Qs: Texts of *Oth.* & Intro Drama; Art Display Policies Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0276. Friday, 12 April 1996. (1) From: Edna Boris Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 96 13:18:46 EDT Subj: Othello Text (2) From: Todd M. Lidh Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 16:01:29 -0400 Subj: Introduction to Drama texts? (3) From: Clark Bowlen Date: Thursday, 11 Apr 1996 12:10:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: [Art Display Policies] (1)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edna Boris Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 96 13:18:46 EDT Subject: Othello Text I'm seeking advice on what paperback text of Othello would be best for community college level students. I'd appreciate hearing your experiences with whatever editions you've used. (2)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Todd M. Lidh Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 16:01:29 -0400 Subject: Introduction to Drama texts? Good day, all. Just a textbook request from someone who will be teaching an Introduction to Drama course in the fall. I'd like one with good coverage but with a selection of Shakespeare plays rather than just one (_Hamlet_ more than likely). I've used the HBJ Anthology before, and I like its inclusion of additional material (reviews, articles, etc), but their selection of plays leaves something to be desired --- for me, at least. Any suggestions on some outstanding anthology textbooks out there? Thanks. Todd M. Lidh UNC-Chapel Hill (3)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Bowlen Date: Thursday, 11 Apr 1996 12:10:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Art Display Policies] A colleague has asked me to help investigate whether colleges have policies about what art work is displayed in public campus spaces. Who selects such work? The art department? The administration? A committee? How are problems, if any, resolved? Anecdotes, referals to colleagues or other lists, institutional guidelines would all be helpful. Please reply directly to: Clark Bowlen MA_Bowlen @ commnet.edu (860) 647-6162 Manchester Community-Technical College PO Box 1046 Manchester CT 06040 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 09:27:30 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0278 Re: Dating Sonnets; Clothing; Induction Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0278. Friday, 12 April 1996. (1) From: Leo Daugherty Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 22:34:34 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0270 Qs: Dating Sonnets (2) From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 17:51:16 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0271 Re: Clothing (3) From: John Velz Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 22:44:25 +0200 Subj: Shrew Inductions (1)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leo Daugherty Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 22:34:34 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0270 Qs: Dating Sonnets Peter Herman writes: >I've just read Prescott, Hiatt, and Hiatt's 1991 article on the dating of the >Sonnets. Using all sorts of computer databases, they suggest that Shakespeare >wrote most of the sonnets during the early 1590s and then revised them >considerably towards the end of his career. They also argue that Q is in fact >an authorized edition, and that the "Lover's Complaint" ought to finish out >the cycle. Do people accept these theses? The article Mr. Herman refers to is "When Did Shakespeare Write SONNETS 1609?" by A. Kent Heiatt, Charles W. Heiatt, and Anne Lake Prescott (STUDIES IN PHILOLOGY 88:1 [1991]: 68-109). I think it is fair to say that most of this terrific article's conclusions are more confirmatory than "original" -- that they help confirm what most serious researchers had previously concluded from looking long and hard at the evidence -- and thus that the question "Do people accept these theses?" would get a Yes, but with three qualifiers: (a.) by "people," you'd mean, as I just said, "people who'd looked long and hard at the evidence"; (b.) by "these theses," you'd mean theses put forth earlier, by others, and then heftily confirmed by the article; (c.) but you'd understand, too, that the question of original composition versus revision is, in the case of SHAKESPEARE'S SONNETS, different from the others, in that it is relatively new and unexplored (although it has already elicited work of high distinction, including this very article, which is in fact very "original" on the point), and thus that its "answer" is not yet so clear, not yet so broadly accepted as the others. But I also think it fair to say that the question "Do people accept these theses?" (if taken as pertaining solely, or even mostly, to the article) has to be answered with the (sad and strange) observation that most people, in my experience of the past five years anyway, don't seem to know the article exists, much less to have read it. (Some people interested in statistical methods as applied to authorship have of course read it -- but have not much commented on it in print.) I'm glad that Mr. Herman has read it -- and that he alerts SHAKSPEReans to it here. Leo Daugherty (2)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 17:51:16 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0271 Re: ClothingFrom: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 17:51:16 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0271 Re: Clothing I always tell students that nothing's new in fashion, not the pierced ears, not the slashing, nothing. It fascinates them as well as makes them uneasy. Recently, I did a workshop with a class of students who had failed the 9th grade once and were repeating R&J. Their teacher decided to go the active learning route and had made much headway. I was there to share our costumes from Winter's Tale [http://shenandoah.peachnet.edu/~dlyles/wt.html] and teach them the pavane. After it was over, I was debriefing them, so to speak, and asked a couple of the young men (who had elected not to dress up) what they thought they would look like to Elizabethans. Their answers were all deeply thought out: we would look undressed and not at *all* fashionable. They, without realizing it, had taken that metacognitive step outside themselves to see the validity of another viewpoint. Another small victory for theatre therapy! Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company Newnan, GA (3)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 22:44:25 +0200 Subject: Shrew Inductions The most wonderful Induction for me was in the *Shrew* of 1978 at RSC in which the audience filed in and took their seats in front of an uncurtained and unlighted raked stage representing a rococo Italian street scene complete with ornate fountain at stage center. When most were seated and looking at their programs or idly staring at the set, an argument broke out in the aisle at row two of the orchestra. A working class man with a thick provincial accent, disheveled and obviously drunk, was insisting that he get the seat someone else was legitimately in. When the usherette tried to calm him he got abusive and shouted for help to some person in the balcony. Ushers came running from all directions, and seeing himself cornered the drunk clambered over the footlights and started to smash the set. The fountain came unseated and one or two flats started to fall leaving scaffolding exposed. The actors in the company came out of the wings and chased the drunk all over the set while flat after flat fell. It was pandemonium on stage and the audience was appalled watching the carefully arranged set fall apart. Finally David Suchet who played Grumio tackled the drunk, rugger fashion, right at stage center and the drunk passed out. Grumio got up and hurried off into the wings and then Enter the Lord and his Huntsman. Some other faculty members and I had students from a French University with us at the Shakespeare Institute, and David Suchet agreed to talk to them about productions they had seen that week. The first question was about whether it was difficult to choreograph the wild scene of running about the stage and destroying the rococo set. "Oh, yes," he replied. "We had to get the timing perfect or it would not work." "Did you ever miss tackling him?" "Yes, it was terrible one night when a man in the front row climbed over the footlights and tried to save the set by tackling Sly. I had to tackle this man and I did and I said in his ear when I had him down on the stage 'IT'S PART OF THE SHOW!!!' As soon as he understood he went scurrying back over the footlights and all through the show he sat there in row 1 with both hands over his face in shame." The production violated all the traditional Italianate fluff one sometimes sees in Shakespearian comedies; Petruchio entered on a motorcycle, a brass band marched over the stage and Baptista Minola rang up the escalating offers of Bianca's suitors on an addingmachine that blew up when they got too big for it. This was a wild farce for which demolishing the traditional set was an apt prologue. As I recall we were urged in the Programme not to talk to those who had not yet seen the production about the way it all began. I hope I have all the details right. It has been 18 years. J.W.V. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 09:40:33 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0279 ATHE and Mid-Atlantic Panels Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0279. Friday, 12 April 1996. (1) From: David Wintersteen Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 23:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Poss. Opening on ATHE Panel (2) From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Thursday, 11 Apr 1996 11:24:44 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Mid-Atlantic Panel (1)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Wintersteen Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 23:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Poss. Opening on ATHE Panel Hello, SHAKSPERians, I have put together a panel for ATHE with two others on cross-dressing in contemporary performances of Shakespeare plays (beyond that called for in the scripts). One of the panel members may be in Montana, however, so we might be in need of a replacement. If you have interest and/or a paper in this area, please e-mail me ASAP. Thanks, David Wintersteen dtw@darkwing.uoregon.edu (2)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Thursday, 11 Apr 1996 11:24:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Mid-Atlantic Panel Call for Papers Shakespeare IN Popular Culture Special Panel Topic for the Mid-Atlantic Popular Culture Conference November 1-3, 1996 Philadelphia In Highbrow/Lowbrow, Lawrence Levine laments the twentieth century view of Shakespeare as purely a high cultural artifact. But in truth, Shakespeare does have a very real and complicated presence in contemporary popular culture, as evidenced by the constant use of Shakespearean references throughout popular fiction, music, film and television. This panel welcomes papers that examine the presence of Shakespeare in popular culture, looking particularly at Shakespearean references and adaptations. Hopefully, this panel will explore the significance of the relationship between popular culture and the Shakespearean canon. ******* Please send an abstract (150-500 words) to: Elizabeth Abele Temple University 1428 W. Norris St., #72 Philadelphia, PA 19121 eabele@astro.ocis.temple.edu Deadline: May 20, 1996 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 09:46:41 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0280 Re: Funeral Elegy Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0280. Friday, 12 April 1996. From: Leo Daugherty Date: Friday, 12 Apr 1996 02:28:02 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0274 Re: Funeral Elegy Dear SHAKSPEReans: In response to Stephanie Hughes' and Gabriel Egan's observations (a.) that part of the claimed "overwhelming evidence" for Shakespeare's authorship of FE is yet to see print, and (b.) that it was thus premature to announce the claim conclusively at the MLA session: they would of course be right, had not virtually all of the evidence to date BEEN presented at that session -- in the form of papers delivered orally (the papers to which I responded). It is mostly and (perhaps inclusively) the recent evidence (and arguments from same) contained in those papers which now awaits publication. One of the reasons I supplied my brief history of the popular press "reception" is to make the point that the discussion here on SHAKSPER sprang from the media coverage which followed (for several weeks) upon the MEETING. Thus, Don and Rick Abrams and I were/are not "premature" with the claim in making it there: we'd seen the evidence before the meeting, and it was shared there with the attendees. More later. Leo Daugherty========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 13:30:49 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.02277 Re: RSC MND Comments: To: shaksper@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0277. Friday, 12 April 1996. (1) From: Jeff Myers Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 13:32:44 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0272 Re: RSC MND (2) From: Clark Bowen Date: Thursday, 11 Apr 1996 10:54:30 -0400 (EDT) Subj: RE: SHK 7.0272 Re: RSC MND (3) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 11 Apr 1996 14:31:37 -0500 (EST) Subj: OBERON-PUCK (4) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Thursday, 11 Apr 1996 20:18:07 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0272 Re: RSC MND (1)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 13:32:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0272 Re: RSC MND > Furthermore, Oberon's fetish for > voyeurism and ready disposal of his wife to an animal raises questions in my > mind at least about why he wants the Indian boy in the first place. > > Regards, > Scott Crozier I wasn't aware that Bottom was an animal. I thought he was a human with an ass's head placed on him as a trick. In other words, the animal in him is an imposition by another being. That he is less than human is implied by creatures who are themselves not human, as well as the class-biased and not particularly more human or enlightened aristocrats in the play. Or are Oberon and Titania human? If not, their comments about each other's supposed affairs with humans (a different species?) betray concerns not about inter-species sex, but about infidelity. Jeff Myers (2)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Bowen Date: Thursday, 11 Apr 1996 10:54:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RE: SHK 7.0272 Re: RSC MND Drawing attention to the play as a play is not a recent development. Brecht's rival, and probably his model,for self-conscious theatricality is Shakespeare. At the very peak of audience involvement, whether tragic/horrific or comic, Shakespeare draws attention to the theatrical event. A brutal murder,stage blood everywhere, probably on white togas, and we get Cassius:" How many ages hence shall this our lofty scene be acted over in states unborn and accents yet unknown?" [_e.g._ Elizabethan England] and Brutus:" How many times shall Caesar bleed in sport?" Or in the midst of laughter at the totally gullible Malvolio, we get Fabian: "If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."(III.iv.29-30). (3)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 11 Apr 1996 14:31:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: OBERON-PUCK In response to Scott Crozier's question as to where does PUCK fit into in all this. Well, I wasn't keeping up with the earlier posts, so I may be missing things, but to me PUCK is increasingly seen as the figure that severely qualifies Oberon's claims of omnicience, etc. The fantasy of male dominance over Titania, being part of it. That he gets the last word in the play is significant. It's weird that Oberon wants the changeling as henchemen because he already "has" PUCK as henchman, but what is the nature of such "having"? If "having" the "changeling" is anything like having "puck", then the patrairchal version of the fairy plot seems increasingly a cover up (and I would say this is seen in the mainplots too. Jack may "hath" Jill, but what helena says about demetrius "mine own and not mine own" seems to get the last word). Also, since the fairies do not quite live in human time, there's the possibility that puck IS the changeling....Anyway, that's where I take some of these thoughts. Thank you Scott for your intelligent questions, Chris Stroffolino (4)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Thursday, 11 Apr 1996 20:18:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0272 Re: RSC MND Shirley Kagan and Scott Crozier: Regarding use of sexual innuendo in playing Shakespeare for grammar schools, this is probably not an issue. I was thinking of some sexual business I have seen in productions for adults, but when I think of the productions I have seen for children I realized that actors that do school productions do it for love, both of Shakespeare and of children, not for money (since there is no money for such productions generally), and that all true actors are close to children in spirit anyway, at least, all that I've known, and all good actors tailor their performances to their audiences, so that any business I have ever seen in such performances was totally a propos. Shirley; I don't disagree in principle with your enthusiasm for "breaking the frame", but I don't agree that it is much of a shock for an audience to realize that it is really sitting in a theater and not frolicking in the forest of Arden after all. It seems to me much more of a challenge to break an audience away from the grip of "reality" and transport it to another time and place and keep it there long enough for the catharsis to occur that is the reason why we are willing to go to the trouble and expense of going to the theater in the first place. I don't agree either that breaking the frame is a recent development. Surely Shakespeare was doing just that with the Christopher Sly business in Shrew, the wedding party in MSND, the various prologues and epilogues. The various dances and feasts that occur in the holiday plays were (in my view) originally breaks in the action during initial Court productions during which the audience of courtiers was brought into the dancing and the feasting to some extent. If you'll pardon a reminiscence: a production of Trojan Women by Andre Serban in NYC in the 60's was done in a warehouse-like space, where the audience stood herded together in the middle of the floor, and the action took place in, around, and above us. The dialogue was entirely in Greek (don't remember whether it was ancient or modern, in any case, none of us understood it). We were herded from one part of the floor to another by cruel soldiers, and some of us almost got run over by a huge cart. The Trojan women moaned, screamed, shrieked, and spat, above our heads. I spent most of the time wishing I were anywhere but there, except for one sublime moment, when a woman was killed, and fell down a sort of wide gangplank, subtly letting herself slide, as though in slow motion. There was a lot of discomfort for the audience, but no catharsis, at least, not for me. (But as you see, I never forgot it.) Scott; I applaud your thinking in regard to the underlying meaning of "the forest of sexual license and magic," and the relief of the lovers to find themselves at the end back on solid ground. Well said. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:02:18 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0281 Re: Texts Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0281. Monday, 15 April 1996. (1) From: Thomas E. Ruddick Date: Friday, 12 Apr 96 10:53:57 EST Subj: RE: SHK 7.0276 Qs: Texts of *Oth.* & Intro Drama (2) From: Roger Gross Date: Friday, 12 Apr 1996 16:24:41 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0276 Qs: Texts of *Oth.* & Intro Drama (3) From: Kate Moncrief Date: Friday, 12 Apr 1996 19:32:58 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Intro Drama (4) From: Surajit Bose Date: Saturday, 13 Apr 1996 20:21:03 -0500 Subj: Q: College texts of Shakespeare and students' reading abilities. (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas E. Ruddick Date: Friday, 12 Apr 96 10:53:57 EST Subject: RE: SHK 7.0276 Qs: Texts of *Oth.* & Intro Drama In response to Todd Lidh's query about texts for intro. to drama: Jacobus, Lee A. _The Bedford Introduction to Drama_. 2e. NY: Bedford/St. Martin's, 1993. I think this volume has everything you describe. All periods of theatre are covered with introductory chapters, several plays (in some cases, such as Roman theatre, excerpts) generally with performance notes, and commentary by noteworthy critics. The Shakespeare section is about 80 pages, and includes Hamlet, Midsummer, and Tempest. Other strengths of the test include an attempt to include female dramatists, and inclusion of some very recent plays like _Dancing as Lughnasa_. Weaknesses of this text might include the omission of any non-western theatre, few photographs (all b&w, color only on cover), and cost to students (it's almost 1500 pages). TR Thomas E. Ruddick Edison Community College (OH) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Gross Date: Friday, 12 Apr 1996 16:24:41 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0276 Qs: Texts of *Oth.* & Intro Drama Re. intro anthologies heavy on Shakespeare: look at the new McGraw-Hill Book of Drama. It has as great selection, including HAMLET, MERCHANT, and OTHELLO. Editors are James Howe and William A. Stephany. (There; I guess I've earned my examination copy.) (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kate Moncrief Date: Friday, 12 Apr 1996 19:32:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Intro Drama Todd M. Lidh asked about an Intro to Drama text. I must admit to being a little biased since I worked as a researcher on this one, but let me recommend *Stages of Drama* in the third edition, edited by Carl H. Klaus, Miriam Gilbert, and Bradford S. Field, Jr. It has a good selection of English Renaissance plays-- *Twelfth Night,* *Othello,* *Doctor Faustus,* *Volpone,* and *The Duchess of Malfi*-- as well as a range of Greek through contemporary plays. I've taught out of the book in our Literature of the Theatre course and I've found the production reviews and photos included for each selection to be useful. Kate Moncrief Univ. of Iowa (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Surajit Bose Date: Saturday, 13 Apr 1996 20:21:03 -0500 Subject: Q: College texts of Shakespeare and students' reading abilities. Edna Boris and Todd Lidh have asked about good editions to use in college courses, and John Ramsay is the latest to remind us that we can't take a sound vocabulary base for granted among our students any more. In the light of these two concerns, I'd like to ask a question about Shakespeare editions that has been bothering me all semester. I'm genuinely struggling to find answers. I'd appreciate any help, particularly from those with any expertise in textual editing. I'm teaching Measure for Measure this sem. to college freshmen. I ordered the Everyman edition blind, because (a) it's cheap and (b) the description sounded really good. The edition has ample notes facing the text; each play is edited directly from the earliest printed texts, and so this is genuinely an edition as opposed to a reprint of some earlier edition; there's a LONG (35-page) historical essay on the way the play has been received and interpreted by critics over the years; there's a briefer foreword from a Shakespearean actor about the play in performance; there's an introduction, a semi-decent bibliography, and a scene-by-scene plot synopsis. All this for $3.95. Sounds great, doesn't it? There is, however, a major catch: the text is old-spelling. In a longish textual introduction, the editor, John F. Andrews (whose scholarship is, of course, formidable) explains the reasons behind this editorial choice.What it boils down to is that by retaining old spelling, we can retain nuances (either of sound, for rhyme and meter, or of meaning, usually as puns) that are lost in modernization. For example, when Angelo, anguishing over his lust for Isabella, asks himself, "Dost thou desire her fowlly for those things/That make her good?" (2.2.174-175) Andrews explains that "fowlly" can mean both (a) "foully" and (b) "in a fowl-like, i.e. filthy and predatory, manner." Sure enough, modernizing to "foully" would cause us to lose this second meaning. But I'm wondering about both the pedagogical effectiveness and the interpretive value of retaining the old spelling. Pedagogically, it's just really off-putting for students to have to decipher Jacobean orthography. As the many anecdotes, simultaneously shocking and amusing, about The Future and diminishing student vocabularies have illustrated, we can't take it for granted, even in modern spelling, that our students will understand words that seem perfectly commonplace, such as "Lo" and "Pulpit." I must say that I seem to have lucked out with my students, in that the only vocab question that got raised was a really good one: "Lucio is described as a 'fantastic' in the Dramatis Personae. What does 'fantastic' mean?" But in general, why add another level of difficulty by sticking to old spelling? It seems gratuitous. Hermeneutically, too, I've begun wondering about the editor's premises. Ultimately the argument behind retaining old spelling seems to be: if we can reproduce the text exactly as Shakespeare's contemporaries saw it, then we can recapture the original meaning of the text. This argument seems rather dubious. After all, there's so much contingency involved in the way texts (particularly Shakespeare's texts) got transmitted in those days. The amount of control Shakespeare had over the printing of his plays seems minimal--there's very little guarantee that what we're reading even in the earliest printed editions (or for that matter even in F1) is an accurate version of what Shakespeare wrote. Look at the chunks of Middleton that show up in Macbeth, for example. So what's the reasoning behind using old spelling as a marker of authorized meaning? "Fowlly" could just be a compositorial accident; elsewhere in the play, "foul" shows up too. On what grounds, then, can we say that the old spelling "fowlly" is meaningful rather than random? Or to shift grounds a bit, why cannot we say that even if the spelling in the original had been not "fowlly" but "foully," there still could be a pun to be made on "fowl" and "foul"? Puns, after all, are context-related; if a second sense is available in any meaningful way, there's a pun; if not, there's none. The edition at points makes claims about meaning that seem really far-fetched. Practically every instance of the word "come" is footnoted as bearing an erotic charge: when Escalus tells Pompey, "Come, you are a tedious fool"; when Angelo's servant tells the provost that Angelo will come right away.....by which point I almost begin to seem like one of John Ramsey's students and wonder whether this sex stuff isn't in fact just stretching things too far. Which only adds to my doubts about the claim that old spelling carries authorized meaning that editorial decisons to modernize erase. It seems that the decision to retain old spelling too is a strategic rather than necessarily more authoritative editorial ploy. This sounds funny coming from me; I've had occasion earlier on this list to champion paleographic rather than philological approaches to texts, and now I'm saying that old-spelling may not be such a good idea. Old spelling texts seem to make paleographic readings more accessible, right? Paradoxically, though, I think the decision to use old-spelling is a philological one: the assumption seems to be that old spelling texts are purer (less corrupt/more chaste) than modernized ones. But that assumption erases historicity even as it seeks to reinscribe it: it erases the material conditions under which texts were produced and circulated in Shakespeare's day, and hypostasizes the earliest texts as authoritative in a way that seems a bit too uncritical. All these are tentative suggestions; I really have only just begun to think about textual editing at all. This is partly because of my general unhappiness with teaching the Everyman text--despite its excellent apparatus and the authority of John F. Andrews--and partly because of my current research on Sidney's New Arcadia, where in fact editorial decisions are constitutive of Sidney's meaning right from the get-go; the posthumous publication of this text under the editorship of Mary Sidney was definitely intended to produce a certain kind of Sidney that wasn't necessarily the same as the historical individual Philip Sidney. So the questions I'm trying to raise here are quite important to me from both teaching and research angles. However, I'm really woefully ignorant about the principles and practice of textual editing, and I'd really appreciate replies (either private or posted to the list) that might help. Thanks! Surajit A. Bose Department of English University of Notre Dame ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:08:20 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0282 Announcements Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0282. Monday, 15 April 1996. (1) From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Friday, 12 Apr 96 16:50:00 PDT Subj: Shakespeare Birthday Lecture at Folger (2) From: William Proctor Williams Date: Saturday, 13 Apr 96 15:37 CDT Subj: British Library (3) From: Richard Abrams Date: Monday, 15 Apr 96 09:07:12 EDT Subj: Conference Announcement (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Friday, 12 Apr 96 16:50:00 PDT Subject: Shakespeare Birthday Lecture at Folger You are cordially Invited to attend the Annual Shakespeare Birthday Lecture at the Folger Shakespeare Library Monday, 22 April 1996 8 PM in the Theatre A.R. Braunmuller speaking on "Bearded Ladies in Shakespeare" Professor Braunmuller is author of "George Peel" (1983), and "Natural Fictions: George Chapman's Major Tragedies" (1992), and co-editor of "The Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Drama" (1990). He teaches English at UCLA. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Proctor Williams Date: Saturday, 13 Apr 96 15:37 CDT Subject: British Library Since many of us have made use of the British Library, I thought this announcement from the Regular Readers' Group might be of interest and perhaps a number of you will wish to respond to the call for action. William Proctor Williams, North American Representative of the RRG ....................................................................... ACT IN THE NEXT 7 DAYS TO SAVE THE ROUND READING ROOM While the British Library management makes swingeing cuts (250 jobs lost, acquisitions and conservation budgets slashed) to finance its move to St. Pancras, the British Museum is this month seeking planning permission and listed building consent to vandalise the Round Reading Room when, and if, the BL finally leaves. Contrary to its stated policy over many years, the BM is preparing to sacrifice its commitment to keeping the Round Reading Room as a library and work place for scholars. Such a commitment is now deemed to be inconvenient to the realisation of the "Great Court Scheme" in which the RRRis redefined as circulation space, with information terminals and, as one BM spokesman memorably reported, "a place for schoolchildren to eat their sandwiches." The "library" element is restricted to a small sector, surrounded by a low glass wall, providing passing tourists with a glimpse of how things used to be. Surrounding the RRR will be a high concourse with shops and cafes. The famous "Iron Stacks" are to be removed. The desks, integral to the original design, will have to largely removed. Many details will be altered, despite Grade One status for the entire building. We believe that this project, for which the BM has 30m pounds promised from the lottery but needs to raise 70m more, is an unworthy project for the millenium. To object to the application for planning permission and listed building consent to dramatically alter this Grade One Listed Building, it is IMPORTANT that YOU write IMMEDIATELY to: The Director of the Environment, London Borough of Camden, Town Hall, Argyle Street, London WC1H 8EQ (Reference: Application N14/16/B P9600014/L9600015) Fax:071 860 5713 British Library Regular Readers' Group, 46 Great Russell Street, London WC14 3PA Telephone 071 631-4220 Fax 071 436-6544 (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Abrams Date: Monday, 15 Apr 96 09:07:12 EDT Subject: Conference Announcement A Conference on W.S.'s Elegy for William Peter April 26, Friday, Portland Maine 7 p.m. Portland Museum of Art sponsored by the University of Southern Maine First public performance of the Elegy: A Dramatic Recitation for Four Voices, scored and directed by Rick Abrams To be followed by lectures and discussion Donald Foster, Vassar College, "W.S[hakespeare]'s `Best- Speaking Witnesses': The Attribution of the Funeral Elegy" Richard Abrams, University of Southern Maine, "Shakespeare Unmasked: The Significance of the Funeral Elegy" Limited seating; reservations required; gratis For reservations and directions, please phone (by April 22, Monday) 207-780-4542, during business hours. Indicate your status as a visiting scholar. For further information and problem resolution, please call Rick Abrams at 207-772-6990. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:14:43 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0283 Re: RSC MND; Funeral Elegy Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0283. Monday, 15 April 1996. (1) From: John Chapot Date: Sunday, 14 Apr 1996 00:59:25 -0400 Subj: RSC MND (2) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Sunday, 14 Apr 1996 17:04:26 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.02277 Re: RSC MND (3) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Friday, 12 Apr 1996 08:16:43 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0274 Re: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Chapot Date: Sunday, 14 Apr 1996 00:59:25 -0400 Subject: RSC MND I also was taken aback by some of the sexual innuendo in the performance (seen here in San Francisco in January) although I'm no prude about these things. The climax of the first half in Brook's famous production was astonishingly erotic and hilarious to boot. Perhaps it was incongruous with the relativly austere design - the big empty box of a set and the cool tone of the lighting, not to mention the scant population onstage. Perhaps they just didn't pull it off. Someone told me that the overt full-mouth kiss planted upon Oberon by Puck early in the show is a gesture that has become a bit of stock business in the British Theatre in recent years. Hence it would convey a specific meaning in London that it lacked here. That would explain why it seemed out of place to me. I saw the show at its preview. There was a very large contingent of young schoolkids (second graders and up) in the center of the orchestra. To my amazement, they sat rapturously still for the whole thing, and came to glorious life for Pyramus and Thisbee. They didn't seem to mind the erotic stuff one way or the other. One last thing - let's take it easy on the little Indian boy. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Sunday, 14 Apr 1996 17:04:26 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.02277 Re: RSC MND Stephanie Hughes and Clark Bowen; I agree entirely that drawing the audience's attention to theatre as a theatrical event is not a recent invention. My point was that in the 20th century we seem to have made a great headway with staging that emphasises this approach and have taken to the idea, in general. Stephanie Hughes just wrote: >It seems to me much more of a challenge to break an audience >away from the grip of "reality" and transport it to another time and >place and keep it there long enough for the catharsis to occur that is >the reason why we are willing to go to the trouble and expense of going >to the theater in the first place. I don't agree either that breaking the >frame is a recent development. The exact point of Brecht's and other great 20th Century directors staging is specifically to deny the catharsis. Brecht, dwelled on the point that as long as an audience exists in some hypnotic state of illusion it was passive and incapable of making decisions, particularly if provided with a convenient release. His idea was tha an audience be denied a release, be forced to deal with "problems" and become active. That is one of the chief ideas behind drawing attention to the theatrical event as such. It is a politically loaded idea, particularly in line with Brecht's Marxist ideaology. I believe, along the same lines, that yet another aspect of what makes Shakespeare intriguing to us today is that the high degree of interpretability and potential subversiveness of his plays. His theatrical sensibilities transcend the politics of his own age and go hand in hand with modern (and post modern) thought. Sincerely, Shirley Kagan. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Friday, 12 Apr 1996 08:16:43 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0274 Re: Funeral Elegy Michael, I saw that Larry King show (April 9) about the Unibomber. The name of the FBI agent was Clint Van Zandt, and he spoke about their matching of Kaczynski's language with that of the bomber. He said that no matter the expertize put into this work, it was after all an "art". Of course that would explain why the Claremont McKenna College program doesn't agree with Shaxicon: Ward Elliott and Don Foster are each artful in different ways. The FBI says they have other evidence, however, a couple of typewriters, papers, tickets, acquaintance and so forth which helps their case. So far as I know, and so far as Foster has given to us, there is nothing at all to support the case that Shakespeare wrote the Funeral Elegy other than the promise of Shaxicon that it's so. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:54:57 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0284 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: DOCTOR DODYPOLL Comments: To: SHAKSPER@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0284. Monday, 15 April 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Monday, April 15, 1996 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: DOCTOR DODYPOLL As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve "The Wisdome of Dr. Dodypoll" (DOCTOR DODYPOLL) transcribed by Richard Kennedy from the SHAKSPER Fileserver. To retrieve "The Wisdome of Dr. Dodypoll," send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET DOCTOR DODYPOLL". Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, please contact the editor at or . PS: There is still a problem that affects some addresses -- my own included -- that causes mail sent to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu to "loop" and be rejected because of an excess of "hops." Should your request for this file generate such an error, please use the following address: LISTSERV@cerdic9.bsu.umd.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 18:41:23 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0285 The New and Improved SHAKSPER Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0285. Tuesday, 16 April 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, April 16, 1996 Subject: The New and Improved SHAKSPER Dear SHAKSPEReans, As many of you have noticed, LISTSERV has been down since yesterday afternoon. The Systems Manager has completely reconfigured the workstation on which LISTSERV resides. This work means that the only address for which you can reach LISTSERV is LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, while the Conference address is only SHAKSPER@ws.BowieState.edu. There should no longer be any problems with messages that "loop." Further, because this machine now handles all its own mail, the turn around time for processing requests should be very fast. I am sorry for any inconvenience, but I am sure we are all pleased that the problem that has plauged many of us since SHAKSPER's move is now a thing of the past. I would also like to take the opportunity to apologize to Patrick Gillespie, who transcribed *The Wisdome of Dr. Dodypoll*; I made a mistake yesterday and did not correctly identify Patrick as the transcriber. Finally, if any messages or requests were returned to you yesterday, please resubmit to the above addresses -- SHAKSPER@ws.BowieState.edu for posting to the Conference -- LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu for requests for files from the fileserver or to change your subscription options. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 19:11:52 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0286 Re: Funeral Elegy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0286. Tuesday, 16 April 1996. (1) From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 15 Apr 1996 12:03:13 +0000 (HELP) Subj: [Funeral Elegy Broadcast] (2) From: Date: Monday, 15 Apr 1996 12:22:18 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Kennedy's Elegy Authentication (3) From: Margaret Brockland-Nease Date: Monday, 15 Apr 96 12:42:54 EST Subj: [Funeral Elegy] (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 16 Apr 1996 16:49:44 -0400 (EDT) Subj: [Funeral Elegy] (5) From: Kay Pilzer Date: Tuesday, 16 Apr 1996 17:29:35 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Fun Elegy, Reprised (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 15 Apr 1996 12:03:13 +0000 (HELP) Subject: [Funeral Elegy Broadcast] Members of the list may be interested to know that excerpts from my recording of the Elegy were broadcast across Canada on Monday April 8th., receiving a good and convinced response from those CBC spots. Delegates who heard it at the Book Exhibit at the World Shakespeare Congress in Los Angeles and who spontaneously commented on it were pretty unanimous in their commendations as well. I shall be very pleased if this recording does a little to assist the authentication of the strange and moving poem. One sign of the shifting opinion -unrelated to the recording- is that both Harper Collins and the new Riverside are including it, although the Norton as not yet deifinite; I hope that the CD will convince Norton further. Harry Hill and Paul Hawkins [director] (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Date: Monday, 15 Apr 1996 12:22:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Kennedy's Elegy Authentication Richard Kennedy observes that Foster provides little in the way of external evidence such as the typewriters and paraphernalia found in the Unibomber's wooded hut. Hovever, there is further authentication readily available for him if he were to listen to the CD or audiocassette made at Concordia University. The rhythms and textures he would hear, with the shifts in mood and tone and the extraordinary emotional closeness, might bring him nearer to acknowledging that he is listening to Shakespeare's voice in *A Funeral Elegy*, albeit from a set of 1996 vocal cords. Of course I have been given luncheon for making this comment. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Brockland-Nease Date: Monday, 15 Apr 96 12:42:54 EST Subject: [Funeral Elegy] In light of the recent similarities noted between the Funeral Elegy arguments and the Unibomber manifesto, is it too facetious to note the Renaissance-like character of the spellings put forth for the "name" of the manifesto's author? I've seen in print Unibomber, Unabomber, and, as the three-inch Newsweek headline proclaimed, Unabomer (planter of unaboms). I can't help but think of the various spellings Sir Walter Ralegh used in his signature. Margaret Brockland-Nease Department of Humanities Brunswick College (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 16 Apr 1996 16:49:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Funeral Elegy] Again for those who don't read the TLS, I'd like to report that Brian Vickers (April 12, 1996) gives a rather long and detailed response to the criticisms of Abrams and Foster (17). Much of what he details has been shifted through before by other scholars, but Vickers, of course, offers his own interpretations. He feels that the differences between Shakespeare's undoubted work and FE are "so gross as to defeat computerized statistics . . . . it only needs a normal reader with some powers of judgment to tell the difference" (17). He ends by claiming that Abrams has played Svengali to Foster! Yours, Bill Godshalk (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kay Pilzer Date: Tuesday, 16 Apr 1996 17:29:35 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Fun Elegy, Reprised Having just returned (OK, so I'm gloating a little!) from the ISA/SAA in LA, where I was privileged to hear Don Foster take on His Honor Stanley Wells (and others) in an eloquent and scholarly presentation, I open my SHAKSPER messages to confront -- a little wearily (Hughes onto the lemmings, presumably in invisible fur, to conflate her earlier metaphors), and others ("Give us new evidence!") -- the ongoing deathless pseudo-debate in this list over attribution of the deathless Funeral Elegy. Foster DOES have a new article forthcoming (perhaps he'll tell us where; I didn't get that part) with a summary of the evidence he's uncovered since publication of his book. So watch for it. But in the meantime, I think it's time we did our own homework, or accept that (Occam-ish? Holmesian?) conclusion: when everything plausible has been omitted (i.e.: this is a Bad Poem, so Our Hero couldn't have written it), then one must admit the implausible (i.e.: that Our Hero wrote this Really Bad Poem!) And, less authoritatively than Foster, but no less urgently, I suggest that a scholar with strong opinions either keep them to her/himself, or spend the time and study necessary to find something to add more useful than strong opinion to this debate. In fact, I find myself moving to the side of the line now occupied by Foster and even His Honor David Bevington (who includes the Elegy in his forthcoming updated *Works* edition): it's time we accept Shakespeare's authorship of this Bad Poem and move to considering the, at least, biographical implications of this discovery. -- for which we owe Foster a debt of gratitude, even if for a gift that NONE of us, including Foster himself, ever wanted. Yours for responsible, polite, (and safe) scholarship, Kay Campbell Pilzer Vanderbilt University < PILZERKL@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 19:18:06 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0287 Re: RSC MND; The Future; Shrew Induction Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0287. Tuesday, 16 April 1996. (1) From: Joseph M Green Date: Monday, 15 Apr 1996 11:54:01 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.02277 Re: RSC MND (2) From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 15 Apr 1996 19:40:24 +0000 (HELP) Subj: The Future (3) From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Monday, 15 Apr 96 10:46:00 0BS Subj: Shrew Induction (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Monday, 15 Apr 1996 11:54:01 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.02277 Re: RSC MND I think that it is probable that Shakespeare's "breaking the frame" had just the opposite effect from any sort of Brechtian "estrangement." In the instances mentioned attention is drawn to the truth of the utterance, enacted in that moment, rather than to the falsity of the illusion. At that instant Cleopatra is squeaking like a boy and at that instant the death of Caesar is again enacted. If there is self-consciousness about theatricality, there is also a consciousness that, at this moment, the play is enacting a truth. Furthermore, the truths being enacted by each utterance are different although both have the effect of strengthening the audience's belief in the integrity of the representation. If dismay is felt that Cleopatra is here and now squeaking like a boy, that dismay is caused by the pathos of the distance between Cleopatra and her representation on stage. The effect is, at the same time this pathos is felt, to invoke the pathos of the "real" Cleopatra by calling attention the impossibility of her adequate representation. The reference to the fact that Caesar's death will be enacted many times calls attention to the importance of the event and the truth uttered by the actor emphasizes this importance -- there is no reference whatsoever to the inadequacy or artificiality of the representation. Shirley Kagan asks what is wrong with positing an erotic relationship between Puck and Oberon if the director has already set up the forest as a place of sensuality and sexual license -- regardless of historical accuracy or propriety. In this case why can't the director make use of whatever character relationships are available? Of course, if the director can do anything he wants, there is nothing wrong with anything. One wonders just what is meant by "available" if this is so? If it is felt that, somehow, the script limits what can be done to or with characters, then I wonder how the script can be interpreted to justify the characterizations in question. There is very little justification in the script for setting up the forest as a place of sensuality and sexual license -- unless one misinterprets 'enforced chastity" as Jan Kott did. After all, the scene is presided over by Diana, when a certain party is asked to move a bit farther away lest passion be fulfilled he does: desires are frustrated and not fulfilled in this particular forest until everything is arranged so that passion can be consummated in marriage. Perhaps there is an equation made between frustration and sensuality or frustration of desire and sexual license and the forest is Shakespeare's version of phone sex? Otherwise, I can't see any merit in the equation. Even if the forest were a place of sensuality, why should that mean that it is just fine for Oberon and Puck to be lovers? Shouldn't there be some indication that they are characterized as such -- other than the implication (which I would imagine that many homosexuals would abhor) that Oberon, because he is "gay" wants the little Indian boy? This seems to me to, once again, reinforce the stereotype that many abhor. Because a place in a play is "set-up" as such and such does this mean that, regardless of any indications that this is how a character is to be understood, all characters within that place must partake of the imputed quality of that place? Does the fact that Elsinore seems a bibulous place mean that Ophelia must gad about with a cocktail in her hand? (This has been done, I'll bet) If Oberon and Puck can be lovers just because they are, for the moment, (they are not, after all, natives of the forest) within it does this mean that, once outside the forest, they could be "straight?" (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 15 Apr 1996 19:40:24 +0000 (HELP) Subject: The Future While it is a truism that language evolves and with its evolution comes a natural concomitant change, it is sad that many undergraduates are finding even the ordinary vocabulary and syntax of Shakespeare that we assume to be so accessible on the contrary alien to the point of incomprehensibility. I have often thought that part of the blame for this lies in our thematic approaches to the plays, whereby we favour plot and character as their "real" significance and in so doing ignore an even more tangible, artistically satisfying and spiritually useful reality in the language by which character is made and plot advanced. Agreeing with George Wright in his "Shakespeare's Metrical Art" as well as with the suave and helpful popularizer Patrick Stuart in his ACTER videos that the people of the plays *are* what they *say*, and with many others who have insisted that the language is what raises the readers' and audiences' minds to an empathetic and metaphysical plane where the "issues" and "ideologies" take on a life beyond the stage and even beyond language itself, I think it is quite wrongheaded to teach the plays as if they were events, even theatrical ones and quite rightheaded to teach them as conversational, theatrical talk the vocabulary of which *are* the issues and ideologies. To rouse students to anywhere near the state where they can enjoy the emotional, intellectual and political benefits to be found in almost all the plays and of course also in the sonnets and even in the "Lover's Complaint", informing the innocent while not boring the bright, I think that before we approach the necessary business of the rhetorical tropes without an apprecation of which the patterns and sorts of thought are largely lost to oblivion, we have to insist on old-fashionmed vocabulary lessons. I have found myself in the middle of a lecture or discussion asking the meaning of certain words and being met with embarrassed silences. When I pointed out the other day that Paul Hawkins of Marianoplis College discovered his stuents had trouble with "mourning" amd "dew" [`as in the essay's due, Mr.Hawkins?'] I assumed that my own third-year Shakespeare course at Concordia was free of such drastic semantic paucity. Not so. It is clear from some of my students' papers that words have not been adequately understood. A theatre student who gave an excellent reading of Claudius' speech as he attempts to pray, a moving and richly spoken reading, gave evidence upon questioning afterwards that there were four words of whose meaning he had not the slightest notion. But then I myself have gotten away with murderous ignorance in auditions and even now and then in performances. I remember an actor in "O What A Lovely War!" saying with delicious bigotry, spat and splattered, the line referring to the orchestra, "They're all yids!"; it was only in the sixth week of the run that I discovered he thought he was calling the musicians by some 1914 English term for faggots. Both actors gave nonetheless splendid readings. So I suppose it can be done. Next year in my Shakespeare course I shall begin again with the Sonnets, but not leave discussing one until I am satisfied that all words have been glossed thoroughly if they are more complex than conjunctions, although even they, of course, can change their function from what we now normally anticipate. In short, I think we have to take it slowly and thoroughly, not abjuring plot outlines and scene summaries, but lingering long on the language that is, for better or worse, such a huge part of our background and present talk. Harry Hill Concordia University Montreal (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Monday, 15 Apr 96 10:46:00 0BS Subject: Shrew Induction Something of the same trick as in the celebrated RSC show was played on the audience at the Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, in 1990. The Crucible always does a Shakespeare in the autumn, but in the summer, famously, it hosts the British snooker championships. Accordingly their production of the Shrew began with a drunk forcing his way past an usherette up on to the stage, where he bawled 'Where's the fucking snooker?' The audience froze until a burly chap climbed out of his front row seat and launched into the lord's part, while the usherette became the hostess. I can't remember whether Sly remained on stage, but I have never forgotten the opening, nor that Vincentio appeared as one of the backpacking walkers so numerous in this locality, who genuinely appeared to have got lost and wandered into the theatre by mistake. Lisa Hopkins, Sheffield Hallam University LMHopkins@shu.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 19:20:57 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0288 CFP: *ILHA DO DESTERRO* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0288. Tuesday, 16 April 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, April 16, 1996 Subject: CFP: *ILHA DO DESTERRO* [This announcement was passed on to me at the 6th World Shakespeare Conference.] *ILHA DO DESTERRO* A Journa1 of Language and Literature of the Graduate Program in English Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina -- Brazil CALL FOR PAPERS DEADLINE: JUNE 15, 1996 (postmark) For a specific volume about Renaissance Studies (excluding Shakespeare). Papers on contemporary issues in poetry, the narrative and drama are welcome. Please follow the MLA manual and process in Microsoft Word 6.0, sending the diskette and one paper copy; idea1 length is 13 double-spaced pages (including notes; no list of works cited, please) and in font size 14. Mail with a simplified "Vitae" to Margarida G. Rauen (editor): Rua Mal. Mallet, 377 / 41A Ahu -- Curitiba -- Pr. 80540-230 / BRAZIL ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 20:26:00 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0289 Questions and Announcements Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0289. Wednesday, 19 April 1996. (1) From: Eileen Flanagan Date: Tuesday, 16 Apr 1996 19:15:00 +0000 Subj: UK Shakespeare Week (2) From: David Thomson Date: Tuesday, 16 Apr 1996 20:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Subj: SHAKSPER on the Web (3) From: James Harner Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 11:46:36 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Birmingham Shakespeare Library (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eileen Flanagan Date: Tuesday, 16 Apr 1996 19:15:00 +0000 Subject: UK Shakespeare Week Please pardon me if information about UK television Shakespeare productions has been posted. As a new member, I'm still slogging my way through the pages and pages of monthly logs, so I may have missed it. I heard that there may be new productions broadcast to commemorate WS birthday. I've checked the web sites for the BBC, Time Out, London Calling, and the Sunday Times, and haven't heard a peep. An aside: I wonder if anyone out there saw Larry King interviewing Sir Ian McKellan about the RICHARD III film about 4-6 weeks ago? LK: 'So wadda ya think Bill would say about his plays being made into movies?' BILL?!?!?!?! BILL?!?!?!?!?!? from Larry King?!? I was all astonishment. VTY, Eileen Flanagan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Thomson Date: Tuesday, 16 Apr 1996 20:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SHAKSPER on the Web Dear SHAKESPER participants, Hardy Cook has given the e-journal Early Modern Literary Studies permission to make available the contents of the SHAKSPER archive via our Internet site. We would like to make the scholarly resources accessible to the public and, to that end, are soliciting permission from authors of articles currently in the archive. As a contributor to the archive, your submission would be included on the EMLS-SHAKESPER web page. While your scholarship is currently publicly accessible to any member of the SHAKSPER list, we hope that you will permit us to make it available to a much wider Internet audience. Replies can be sent to or . If at any point in the future you wish the material withdrawn from the public domain, you have only to advise us and we will remove it from the web. We look forward to your response at your earliest convenience. Available files will be accessible on April 30th; other files will be added as permissions are received. Please 'drop by' the EMLS web site and give us your impressions of SHAKSPER on the World Wide Web. Regards, dt (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Harner Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 11:46:36 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Birmingham Shakespeare Library Niky Rathbone, Head of Services at the Central Library, Birmingham, has asked that I forward the following description of the Library's Shakespeare collection. Jim Harner THE BIRMINGHAM SHAKESPEARE LIBRARY The Library was founded in 1864 by the local Shakespeare Club, who donated a small collection of books to form the nucleus of the collection. The aim, as stated by George Dawson, President, was that the Library should contain, as far as practicable, "every edition and every translation of Shakespeare, all the commentators, good, bad and indifferent; in short, every book connected with the life and works of our great poet, I would add portraits of Shakespeare and all the pictures, etc. illustrative of his work." The Library contains copies of each of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Folio editions of Shakespeare's work. The First Folio, 1623, is the first collected edition of Shakespeare's works, and the earliest source for about half his plays, making it one of the most important books in the English language. The Library also holds over seventy editions of the separate plays published before 1709, including three Pavier quartos, published in 1619, but falsely dated to make them appear earlier. The holdings of Restoration adaptations are particularly good. Most English editions of the complete works are represented, from the first illustrated edition, edited by Nicholas Rowe in 1709, to the present, together with a comprehensive collection of criticism. In the Library it is possible to satisfy enquiries ranging from primary school project work to GCSE student level through every possible subject relating to Shakespeare. The Library also contains foreign criticism and editions in 93 languages, with particularly strong holdings in French and German. Production material is particularly well covered, with extensive collections of performance reviews, programmes, photographs, playbills and posters, British and foreign. The Library has the complete BBC TV Shakespeare series on video, and most commercial Shakespeare video releases, for reference use. There is a small collection of recordings, and a number of prompt books, including examples from the Birmingham Theatre Royal and some of Frank Benson's. There are also three sets of nineteenth century scrapbooks containing illustrations to the plays. The Birmingham Shakespeare Library was originally located in the Shakespeare Memorial Room. A separate leaflet is available on the Room, which is now used for meetings and only open to the public by special arrangement. The bookstock of the Library is part of the Arts, Languages and Literature section of Birmingham Central Library, located on Floor 3. Other holdings which might be of interest are the Birmingham Repertory Theatre Archives and the general holdings on performance arts and literature. For detailed enquiries it is advisable to make an appointment with the Shakespeare Librarian. The Library is open Monday to Friday: 09.00-20.00, Saturday 09.00-17.00. Central Library, Chamberlain Square, Birmingham B3 3HQ U.K. Telephone: 0121 235 4227 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 20:32:22 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0290 Re: RSC MND Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0290. Wednesday, 19 April 1996. (1) From: Scott Crozier Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 11:40:57 +1000 Subj: Re: RSC MND (2) From: Juul Muller Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 16:26:23 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0287 Re: MND; (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 18:34:58 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0287 Re: RSC MND (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 11:40:57 +1000 Subject: Re: RSC MND In a thoughtful discussion on MND Joseph M Green wrote "There is very little justification in the script for setting up the forest as a place of sensuality and sexual license". I agree, it may not have been so but as the play is acquired by directors in the latter part of the 20thC I would think that the ver yreading that Joseph Green dismisses is accurate. We read that Oberon wishes Titania to wake to find "ounce or cat or bear pard or boar". Why the need for animals to "punish" her? She wakes to find an ass. Oberon then spies on her with her ass. Further, Demetrius, Helena, Lysander and Hermia's plight in the forest may be founded in frustration but the frustration (which is Helena's case leads to dispair) is caused by the misdirection of pysical attention. This was not portrayed at all in the recent RSC prodcution in which the lovers reverted to the mere buffoonery of which Hall's 1958 lovers were criticised. Puck and Oberon's relationship is not dramatically sexual but theatrically constructed as such in productions which accept Kott's psycho-sexual reading of the play. Joseph Green may think that Kott was wrong in his reading of "enforc'd chastity" but that reading has had more influence on productions since 1968 than any other reading of the play. Many wrongs don't make a right but it certainly has created a sense of the play for audiences over the past thirty years. Regards, Scott Crozier (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juul Muller Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 16:26:23 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0287 Re: MND; All this discussion of eroticism in MND makes me wonder if anyone (else) knows the (British) Lindsay Kemp (Dance) Company video of MND? It does not include very much of the text and the music (to my sorrow) is 20th century. The visual realisation however is superb. The homoerotic relationships including Oberon, Puck and the Indian boy are taken entirely for granted. Worth seeing, but for some weird reason it will "not be supplied to anyone below [15]". Needless to say, that doesn't go for Holland. Directed by Celestino Coronado, a Dangerous to Know production, 85 minutes. Julie Muller (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 18:34:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0287 Re: RSC MND Joseph Green writes: >There is very little justification in the script for setting up the forest as a >place of sensuality and sexual license -- unless one misinterprets 'enforced >chastity" as Jan Kott did Aren't there two valid ways in which to read "enforced chastity" (3.1.200)? It means either a chastity that has been violated by force (i.e., rape), or chastity that is being forced on someone when that someone would prefer not to be chaste. I don't see how either of these readings can be called an out and out misinterpretation. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 20:38:04 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0291 Re: Texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0291. Wednesday, 19 April 1996. (1) From: W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 09:16:59 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Old Spelling Texts and Drama Textbooks (2) From: Kay Pilzer Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 08:51:56 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Intro texts (3) From: Michael Kischner Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 12:37:07 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: Everyman/Andrews Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 09:16:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Old Spelling Texts and Drama Textbooks I have brief responses to two recent postings. First, to Todd Lidh's request about Intro. to Drama textbooks. I have used the Jacobus text (Bedford) and agree it has some strengths. I would add to its list of weaknesses, though, the lack of a full Roman play (not Shakespeares--they have only scenes from Plautus and Seneca). As far as non-western drama goes, it does include Soyinka's _The Strong Breed_ which, though not terribly far removed from the western dramatic tradition, does come from a non-western culture. My response to Surajit Bose's interesting post on old-spelling texts is an encouragement to consider the genre. When writing as a dramatist, Shakespeare's puns would not be visual in nature; they would be aural. Thus, as you note, the spelling of "fowlly" versus "foully" makes no difference whatsoever. A good analogue would be Spenser, a poet whose work is almost impossible to put into modern spelling. Spenser's puns are very often visual in nature, and to change the spelling of his poems would change the meaning. Of course, even with Spenser it is hard to know at all times when a spelling variant is intended and when it is a compositorial alteration. So, I agree that there is less value in an old-spelling Shakespeare text in most cases. Old spelling may be useful in rhymed speeches, and there is certainly some value, I believe, in old spelling non-dramatic texts. However, in most cases, I would lean toward modern spelling editions for introductory students. I would only want an old spelling edition if I were teaching a course that was going to bring up the problem of the texts (I have taught such a course). To go back to the earlier pun, if we were suddenly to recover Shakespeare's foul/fowl papers, old spelling might become more important. W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Department of Literature and Language University of North Carolina at Asheville (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kay Pilzer Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 08:51:56 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Intro texts Since I haven't seen them mentioned, let me vote for the Folger Library paperback editions: good intros to Elizabethan theatre and Shakespeare's life, and (in the new editions) one good essay in the back. Facing-page notes and even some illustrations. My students liked them best of the editions we tried this semester (including the Everyman). Professors stressing performance, though, might be interested in the Applause editions: facing page notes--which include notes detailing performance practices for the line/action glossed. Some might find these notes too interventionist, but I think some will find them interesting from the viewpoint of how a scene has been played. Applause Books phone: (212) 496-7511 Folger Library Editions from Washington Square Press, a division of Simon and Schuster in New York. Happy ordering! --Kay Pilzer Vanderbilt Univ. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Kischner Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 12:37:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Everyman/Andrews Hamlet Returning to the teaching of Shakespeare after some years, I followed a friend's suggestion that I use the Everyman paperbacks edited by John Andrews. I'm glad I did, since they make the texts strange both to me and my students and thereby prompt thought and discussion. I assume that when these first came out they occasioned debate. Am I correct? Can anyone recall major points brought up in the debate? Was Andrews suspected of occasionally putting an antic disposition on, or at least of going a bit too far to make the text strange? I have a particular question concerning Hamlet 2.2.109-11, Polonius reading from Hamlet's letter to Ophelia: 'To the Celestial and my Soul's Idol, the most *beautiful* Ophelia -- ' That's an ill Phrase, a vile Phrase; *'beautified'* is a vile Phrase. . . Where can that "beautiful" (instead of "beautified") have come from? Neither Q2 nor F1, I gather. Michael Kischner North Seattle Community College ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 20:43:27 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0292 Funeral Elegy; Internet Scholarly Editions of Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0292. Wednesday, 19 April 1996. (1) From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 13:42:41 +0200 Subj: Re: Fun Elegy, Reprised (2) From: Jimmy Jung Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 2:05pm Subj: RE: Internet Scholarly Editions of Shakespeare; (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 13:42:41 +0200 Subject: Re: Fun Elegy, Reprised On Tuesday, 16 Apr 1996, Kay Campbell Pilzer wrote: [material omitted] > I think it's time we did our own homework, or accept that >(Occam-ish? Holmesian?) conclusion: when everything plausible has been >omitted (i.e.: this is a Bad Poem, so Our Hero couldn't have written it), >then one must admit the implausible (i.e.: that Our Hero wrote this Really >Bad Poem!) I'm afraid this is not a case of *nihil est tertium*--I'm sure I've heard someone say "This Bad Poem was written by Our Hero, so it can't be but a Really Good Bad Poem!" Cheers, Marcello Cappuzzo University of Palermo (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jimmy Jung Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 2:05pm Subject: RE: Internet Scholarly Editions of Shakespeare; Michael Best announced an internet/shakespeare effort. I was under the impression that the Folger was already doing something similar? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:13:00 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0293 Re: Texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0293. Thursday, 18 April 1996. (1) From: Milla Riggio Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 20:29:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0281 Re: Texts (2) From: Milla Riggio Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 20:35:50 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0281 Re: Texts (3) From: Joanne Walen Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 00:08:28 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0281 Texts (4) From: Nick Clary Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 08:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Subj: "beautiful" Emendation in *Hamlet* (5) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 14:32:50 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0291 Re: Texts (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 20:29:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0281 Re: Texts I'm replying to Surajit Bose's inquiry about textual editing, though the response may seem somewhat oblique. When working on the Hartford Stage Company production of Romeo and Juliet, directed by Mark Lamos, this past fall, we used the Everyman edition of R&J as a script for the production. Initially, it seemed like a great idea to give the cast a text in which they had to SEE the older puns visually and so forth. But I at least came to regret the choice. First of all, the texts are highly inconsistent. They are not original spelling texts. They are -- or at least R&J -- is, a text that intermingles some older spellings with newer ones, no verification of which is which. Moreover, there was a plethora of unauthorized capitalizations of nouns, which Andrews explains as unverified by early texts but somehow in the spirit of the early texts. These drove me crazy, for they encouraged actor emphasis of nouns that required little or no stress; they affected the way we all read the lines; they were distracting, and they have no validity in the history of the texts. I found notes to be inconsistent, also; sometimes even wrong. More and more, as we worked, both the actors and I migrated to the new Cambridge text, edtied by Gwynne Evans, as the best and most reliable text, both in terms of the text of the play and the notes. I think I would never recommend an Everyman text again after this experience. As for textual editing, there are of course many schools of editing and I think they are in flux particularly now. As an editor myself, and I do edit, I prefer some allegiance to original language if not spelling and grammar. I like readers, actors, and so forth to be able to follow a roadmap through an edited text that leads them back to the sources from which that text has been taken. The maps may be subtly incorporated so as not to spoil the reading experience, but I always want to know what the copytext actually looked like as a reader and so, as an editor, I try to provide a method by which it can be reconstructed by the reader, though I see little purpose in working with older spellings of texts in the case of an author like Shakespeare whose works have formed one of the staples of modern education. I would never, however, add stage directions, for I also think that readers and actors deserve the opportunity to see how the script/text suggests (or not) its own actions, but all these issues are, of course, a matter of editorial principle, and there is rampant disagreement about them right now! Milla Riggio (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 20:35:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0281 Re: Texts And an appendix on the Everyman texts: One thing I forgot to mention with regard to the Everyman ROMEO AND JULIET was the number of actual textual ERRORS, inexplicable and very careless, as when for instance 1.2 begins by attributing Capulet's opening speech "But Mountague is bound as well as I..." to -- guess who -- JULIET (and I kid you not!). There were at least a half dozen errors just about as egregious and as obvious, but uncorrected, as this. 'Nuff said, Milla Riggio (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 00:08:28 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0281 Texts Let me second Kate Moncrief's recommendation of the 3rd edition of *Stages of Drama* if for no other reason than Miriam Gilbert's hand in it. The introductions to the plays keep us always mindful that there is a difference between "reading and witnessing" a play, not as two diametrically opposed actions, but ones that require somewhat different strategies--that "the text of a play is is actually a script for production." Wendy Wasserstein's short play *The Man in the Case* provides a sort of "practice session" for the reader to try out some suggestions for imaginative staging, with follow-up commentary. This is a teaching strategy that students can then "use as a source of ideas for reading other plays in this collection." There are also Appendix A--Analyzing a Play: Close Reading for Writing-- and Appendix B--Film and Video Productions for plays in *Stages of Drama*--both useful for teachers--and students. The book is hefty-- but in durable soft cover it is friendly to use--and includes 41 plays. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Clary Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 08:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "beautiful" Emendation in *Hamlet* Michael Kischner asks about the substitution of "beautiful" for "beautified" in *Hamlet* 2.2.109-111. A place to start looking might be the H.H. Furness variorum edition (1877; rpt. Dover 1963). Beginning with Theobald's emendation "beatified" (ed. 1733), Furness offers a brief account of the commentary pertinent to this subject. He ends on the following gloss attributed to Dyce (ed. 1857): "By `beautified' (which, however `vile' a phrase,' is common enough in our early writers) I believe Hamlet meant `beautiful,' and not `accomplished.'" Furness, of course, is selective in his story of the commentaries. Members of the New Variorum Hamlet team, under the supervision of Bernice W. Kliman, may be consulted directly for further and more detailed information. Eric Rasmussen is collating the section of the text in question. Nick Clary (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 14:32:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0291 Re: Texts Michael Kischner writes: >I have a particular question concerning Hamlet 2.2.109-11, Polonius reading >from Hamlet's letter to Ophelia: > >'To the Celestial and my Soul's Idol, the most *beautiful* Ophelia -- ' That's >an ill Phrase, a vile Phrase; *'beautified'* is a vile Phrase. . . > >Where can that "beautiful" (instead of "beautified") have come from? Neither Q2 >nor F1, I gather. Remember that John Andrews was also responsible for the reading: "To be or to be. That is the question." John was interviewed by Noah Adams on All Things Considered regarding that little error. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:21:10 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0294 Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0294. Thursday, 18 April 1996. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 01:04:10 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0287 Re: RSC MND (2) From: Joseph M Green Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 12:26:38 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0290 Re: RSC MND (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 01:04:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0287 Re: RSC MND In response to Shirley Kagan and Joseph Green's recent posts on the alienation effect....with specific reference to MND.... Here's Brecht's poem "Showing Has To Be Shown" (or part of it) Show that you are showing! Among all the varied attitudes Which you show when showing how men play their parts The attitude of showing must never be forgotten.... This is how to practice: before you show the way A man betrays someone, or is seized with jealousy Or concludes a deal, first look At the audience, as if you wished to say: 'Now take note, this man is now betraying someone and this is how he does it....' In this way...your playing will resemble a weaver's weaving, the work of a craftsman...." Now, aside from the mention of "weaver", there DOES seem to be an attitude similar here to the dramaturgical attitude of Bottom and the "rude mechanicals" in MND. It has been a commonplace of Sx criticism that S is satirizing the ineptitude of these actors and their "botched job" is seen as a result of their misguided fear of "frightening the ladies" with the power of dramatic verisimilitude. Yet, it seems possible that Shakespeare, in that play at least, is turning the satire against the ON-STAGE audience at least as much as against these rude mechanicals. There is a sense in which the whole play of MND does to tragedy on a macrocosmic level the same thing that Bottom and company's unwitting "alienation effect" PYRAMUS AND THISBY does to it (tragedy) on a microcosmic level.... This distrust of the conventional limits of theatre may very well be pre-emptive, insofar as calling attention to the weakness of one's representation may cut potential audience skepticism at the pass as it were ('were it played on the stage it would be condemned as an improbable fiction"), but I think that it only "authenticates" what we see on the Shakespearean stage by calling attention to the questionable status of ANY thing that claims unselfconsciously to be "authentic". This, I believe, is where the subversiveness lies (and it's not restricted to the comedies either). Chris Stroffolino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 12:26:38 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0290 Re: RSC MND Anent "enforced chastity" Antony Price (in the Macmillan Press Casebook) gleefully quotes Sir Arthur Quiller Couch: ...A friend of mine -- an old squire of Devon -- used to demonstrate to me at great length that when Shakespeare wrote...of the moon looking with 'with a watery eye' -- And when she weeps, weeps every little flower, Lamenting some enforced chastity -- he anticipated our modern knowledge of plant-fertilization. Good man, he took 'enforced' to mean 'compulsory'; and I never dared to dash his enthusiasm by hinting that, as Shakespeare would use the word 'enforced chastity' meant a chastity violated. (An extract from *Shakespeare's Workmanship*) Price adds that "A failure to understand the meaning of this phrase vitiates the arguments of Jan Kott...and many other recent critics." The OED, however, cites "enforced smiles" from Richard III so the meaning of compulsory or "produced by force" seems clearly a meaning Shakespeare would give to the word. But it still seems to me that that would be the meaning in this instance: as unlikely as Kott's assertion that Titania longs for animal love. The moon that is weeping is the same moon whose "chaste beams" allow the fair vestal enthroned in the west to carry on as usual when Cupid's shaft is quenched by them. Furthermore, even if "enforced chastity" is taken to mean compulsory, it seems fantastic to imagine that the moon and the little flowers weep because men and women are forced to remain chaste until marriage and that the audience is meant to view "free love" (or whatever Jan Kott had in mind) as a good thing and weep with the little flowers. Titania's speech here is a response to Bottom's speeech to Mustardseed: "I promise you your kindred hath made my eyes water ere now." Titania looks from Bottom's watery eyes to the moon's "wat'ry eye" and, I suspect, if the meaning of "compulsory" is the meaning intended, Shakespeare is, once again, perjuring the eye and the ridiculousness of the sentiment is what is presented rather than the tragedy of maidens (and Fairy Queens) being denied a good futtering. Or, if the significance of this image pattern is not admitted, it is still very likely that the enforced chastity that is lamented is the enforced chastity of those who are denied their choice of marriage partners -- as might happen to Hermia. In a society in which there was even a concept of "wedded chastity" in which even a women who gave birth could be described as chaste it doesn't seem to me that the contrast often cited between the moon as embodying virginity and the moon embodying child-birth, mutability in the play would be seen as a contrast. Marriage partners could be lovers and remain "chaste" as is shown by a glance through Spenser. A compulsory chastity denies the chastity of wedded love and little flowers might weep. It is hard to imagine little Elizabethan flowers weeping because maidens and a fairy queens are denied a Kottian coupling -- unless thay are to be understood as having made the acquaintance of Master Mustardseed. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:25:43 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0295. Thursday, 18 April 1996. (1) From: David Schalkwyk Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 10:02:46 SAST-2 Subj: [Questions] (2) From: Laurie E. Osborne Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 14:33:28 -0400 Subj: New Animated Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Schalkwyk Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 10:02:46 SAST-2 Subject: [Questions] I have two rather trivial questions with which I hope some subscribers may be able to help me. First, I'd like to know whether academic work on and interest in Shakespeare has increased or declined since the advent of theory, especially theory concerned with displacing or eradicating the canon. Any ideas about where and how to look for this information? My second quest is to find Kenneth Branagh's pronouncements on what he was trying to do in his screen adaptations of _Much Ado_ and _Henry V_. Does anyone know how commercially successful these films were/are? Please respond privately to schalk@beattie.uct.ac.za if the information is unlikely to be of general interest. Thanks David Schalkwyk English Department University of Cape Town Private Bag Rondebosch 7700 South Africa Phone: (021) 650-2852 Fax: (021) 650-3726 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laurie E. Osborne Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 14:33:28 -0400 Subject: New Animated Shakespeare Hello, all, I have just returned to the list, so please forgive me if this has already come up. I was wondering if anyone had seen and/or taped the new series of HBO Shakespeare cartoons (AYLI, RIII, Othello, etc.). They were on in January and February, and I am trying to get a look at them. I want to continue some work that I did on the earlier series. If someone is willing to send me their tape, I faithfully promise to return it ASAP. You can reply off the list, if you like. Laurie Osborne Dept. of English Colby College leosborn@colby.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:18:52 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0296 Suggestion for Collaboration Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0296. Friday, 19 April 1996. From: Teatrul M. Eminescu Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 15:04:21 +0200 Subject: Suggestion for Collaboration Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, The company of the "Transnational Correspondent" are happy to introduce themselves to you and propose colaboration in the field of international cultural exchange. The " Transnational Correspondent" Agency is situated in National Theatre "M. Eminescu" in the central part of Kishinev city - the capital of the Republic of Moldova, one of the former Soviet republics. Agency have at one's disposal possibilities to organize relation with diverse creative and musical collectives of Moldova. Such groups, as "Studio de Opera", National Theatre, Opera Theatre, National Cameral Orchestra, National Simphonic Orchestra, Philarmony and other conquered spectatores European countries with their performences, organized with assistance of our Agency.A classic and modern autor's works are includes in repertoire collectives, colaborating with our company. Among the performers are professors and teachers of Higher Musical Institutions of Moldova, Ukraine, Russia, Romania. The beautifull voices of our opera singers remain in memory of grateful audience for long time. Our Agency is interested in establising relations with theatres, orchestras and other organizations with intention to participate in various theatre and musical festivales, to arrange performances our collectives in other countries and foreign in Moldova. If you can help in interesting us questions, we will be very glad to contact with you in nearest time. We would very much appreciate any proposals from you with respect to a possible future collaboration. Thank you in advance and, please, accept the ensurance of our high consideration. Respectfully, Baltaga Vladimir Menager-Impressario Our coordinates: 79, Stefan cel Mare str. Kishinev, Republic of Moldova, 277012. Phone: +3732 22-13-15, 25-02-84, fax 22-13-15, E-mail: teatral@mdearn.cri.md ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:25:13 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0297 Re: Funeral Elegy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0297. Friday, 19 April 1996. (1) From: Joseph M Green Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 15:20:17 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0292 Funeral Elegy (2) From: Don Foster Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 18:09:09 -0400 (EDT) Subj: FE; use of statistics (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 15:20:17 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0292 Funeral Elegy The really good bad poem seems to be what is anticipated/hinted by recent descriptions of the poem by its supporters. A reply to Vickers characterizes the poem as "strange and challenging" and Harry Hill has recently described the poem as strange and something else. "Strange" seems to be the key -- not what we would expect as the wily Bard creates another new genre. Even Kenneth Muir would be pleased. I think we will soon be treated to a version of the poem as "Unpoem" (like the "Uncola") as we are shown how our very banal expectations are defeated so that they might be questioned/suspended/ subverted/ mis en abymed all to hell. The Bard takes us to Plutonian depths of ummeaning where nothing is but what is not: the enjambments so cunning that they are made to seem like what a more innocent age was to describe as "run-on sentences" enforce a vision of funeral ribands in an idiot wind, slashed into meaningless lengths and fluttering over the tomb of poetry which no-one visits except our Bard who, due to his recent cerebral accident, isn't even sure why he is there but remembers an injury (O Fortunatus!) done to him and makes moan no longer motley to the view but free at last to tu-whit the Parson's saw as was his wont when at home dandling (NOT) little Hamnet (dead as a doornail -- no, too poetic) but clutching this or that writ which he will have served against his neighbor or dreaming of exterminating the rough rug-headed kern. He lugs the Muse's guts up Helicon and Helicon is transformed into a funeral mound -- death, death, death but at least William Peter cannot, like him, be slandered and damn it if he could he would bring him back! Yes, write that down. What could be more banal? And, I'll be a youth -- which I am not -- and that is the point -- in this poem that is not a poem. In this strange poem "Shakespeare," while, ostensibly, hyperbolizing and problematizing the "project" of poetry by miming transactions with the corpse of William Peter and, thereby, clearing a space, precisely by presenting the monologic voice as overdetermined, for the sort of poetry heretofore thought possible only after the atrocities of this century and the apocalyptic vision of Tammy Faye Baker and Joyce Carol Oates coming to judge the living in the dead in fact elides the category of difference by usurping subject positions such as the maternal by evacuating meaning from the metaphysics of substance while, at the same time, constructing the death-driven interiority of his class, race, gender and sex as the only possible non-intersection of textual surfaces. Indeed, the very illusion of identification with nothingness marks a moment of crises that is, certainly, constituative of readings that, unlike mine, necessarily engage the text in this way through their acceptance of identification with nothingness as deconstructed by the patriarchal, misogynist, kern-hating bard and so act to deny a revisionary praxis that would open this text to a consideration of what is really at stake for cultural workers. This, itself, is, of course, a grand a vulnerable claim but it is only in this way that the critical process postulated by those whose jobs I want can be satisfactorily tested and, perhaps, experimentally reproduced. As Walter Benjamin remarks: "late and soon, getting and spending we lay waste our hours." This creme brulee, so unlike that intoned and ventroliquized by WS on William Peter is, in fact, an argument ex silentio directed against the banalization of art for it is precisely in the fact that what is called "highart" is, in fact, banal that the necessary insight -- that no death driven person of Shakespeares class, sex, gender, race and, especially, nationality should tell us that -- that a politics can begin to be built on the ruins of th banal so that persons in milltowns gobbling Prozac while creating a space for banality can construe this poem not as issuing simply from l'homme meme but, precisely, as what should be turned away from (this mise au point of the danse de vertige of the mission civilitrice which seeks always to claim that les jeux sont faits). "Finita la commedia" must always be given a deferred significance. What moment exactly are we talking about? And, yet, in denying such a notion are we not, precisely, denying politics? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 18:09:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: FE; use of statistics I have been content to stay out of the SHAKSPER discussion of "A Funeral Elegy," eavesdropping now and then as I have had time, but jumping in only when asked to do so: and this is one such instance. Two SHAKSPERians have asked me to respond to Mr. Kennedy's remarks about the Claremont-McKenna "Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable," headed Prof. Ward Elliott, a political scientist and quondam anti-Stratfordian who seems to have been convinced by his research that Shakespeare actually wrote Shakespeare. Mr. Kennedy has gleefully reported that FE *fails* five of Elliott's tests for Shakespearean authorship. But Mr. Kennedy seems either not to have read, or not to have understood, Prof. Elliott's study, for the five "rejections" for FE are *precisely* those tests for which FE *should* get rejections: Elliott has not in every instance understood the implications of his own research (as I will show in a moment), but his work fully supports a Shakespearean attribution for FE as a text written by the Bard, in 1612, in continuous verse. Because Prof. Elliott has had trouble getting his study published except as a privately distributed Xerox, few members of SHAKSPER will be familiar with his work. Elliott takes the dramatic works as his norm, with three batteries of statistical tests, some more reliable than others: "Round 1," 17 tests; "Round 2," 24 tests; "Round 3," 15 tests. Of these 56 tests, *ALL* of Shakespeare's nondramatic generate numerous "rejections," not just FE. But in a special appendix, Elliott has culled out 17 tests (from a total of 56 tests) that generate no more than 1 "rejection" for just *Ven*, *Luc*, and *Son*. He then supplies data for those 17 tests only, and compares them with other canonical and noncanonical poems. Even under these extraordinarily limited circumstances, FE generates only 5 "rejections," fewer than for LC or PhT, and fewer rejections than for *Ven*, *Luc*, and *Son* in the 3-battery section. The first "rejection" for FE is that of "grade level": Elliott has used a word processor's "Grade-Level" tester to evaluate selections from all of Shakespeare's dramatic and nondramatic works, and from dozens of plays and poems by other poets. ("Grade level" is determined by sentence length, from capital-letter to end-puncutation, and has no direct relation to the poet's education.) Elliott finds that Shakespeare's dramatic dialogue (the plays) ranges in average sentence-length from Grade Level 5 to GL 7. The poems have a higher GL because they are written in stanzaic form without the frequent breaks of dramatic dialogue: they vary thus from GL 10 to GL 22. PhT, having a four-line stanza, has a GL of 8. Elliott's *Ven* samples, written in a six-line stanza, have a median GL of 10; the *Luc* and *LC* samples, written in a seven-line stanza, both have a median GL of 11; the *Son* samples, written in a fourteen-line stanza, have a median GL of 13; and FE, written in continuous verse without any stanzaic breaks, has a GL of 22. The only other text tested by Elliott with a GL higher than 19 is Heywood's *Troia Britannica*, also in continuous verse without stanzaic breaks; while other non-Shakespearean texts in continuous verse tend to hover around 16-18. When adjusted for stanzaic form, FE should register a GL between 19 and 24 if written by Shakespeare. At GL 22, it's right on the money. Elliott works from my 1989 text of FE, which is more lightly pointed than the original, and somewhat more lightly pointed than the *Riverside* text that serves as the basis for his canonical sample; but it is impossible to punctuate FE in any sensible fashion so that it falls outside the expected range for continuous verse by Shakespeare. By "rejection" of a 22 Grade Level, Elliott's shows only that FE is in a different stanzaic form than Shakespeare's other works (which might be taken as evidence against his authorship); but given its form, the GL figures suggest that Shakespeare wrote it. Mr. Kennedy, if he has even *looked* at Elliott's study, has confusedly taken GL--a generic marker--to be an attributional marker, perhaps having been misled by Prof. Elliott's own confusion on this point. Those SHAKSPERians who would like more information on the remaining four "rejections" for FE, or for the six rejections for LC, may write me directly. These are "No / (No + Not); "Enclitics"; "Proclitics"; and "BoB5"; additional "rejections" (not mentioned by Elliott because *Ven* and *Luc* likewise get "rejections") include various colloquialisms and oaths ("i'faith") and interjections ("hark"). The Elliott tests for which FE gets a "pass" are "hyphenated compounds/20k," "relative clauses/20k," "feminine endings," "enjambment," "*with*," "modal distance block," "modal distance corpus"; FE also gets additional passes (not mentioned by Ellott because *Ven* and *Luc* get two or more "rejections") for multiple other tests, including "periphrastic do," "prefixes," "suffixes," "rare words," "new words, "and various of Elliott's "BoB" tests other than "BoB5"). In other words, Mr. Kennedy has (once again, unwittingly) been trumpeting evidence that demolishes his own thesis (though not, of course, his confidence). Hope this helps. Foster ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:50:18 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0300 Re: Branagh and Cartoons Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0300. Friday, 19 April 1996. (1) From: John Ramsay Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 01:39:23 -0400 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons (2) From: Milla Riggio Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 03:21:24 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons (3) From: Nora Kreimer Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 20:28:00 ARG Subj: Re: SHK 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Ramsay Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 01:39:23 -0400 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons Re : Kenneth Branagh's pronouncements Branagh said on one of the late night talk shows a couple of years ago that he had terribly boring teachers for Shakespeare in high school and became determined to make Shakespeare interesting. I tell my classes he was lucky he didn't have a teacher like me. Shakespeare would have been so interesting Branagh would have ended up as a junior bank teller. John Ramsay Centennial S.S. Welland, Ontario, Canada jramsay@freenet.npiec.on.ca (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 03:21:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons To: David Schalkwyk - There is, or was, one of those glitzy but fairly inexpensive MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING filmbooks, in which Branagh talks about his choices in that film. Anything comparable on Henry V is probably out of print. So go for the newer play. Best, Milla Riggio (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nora Kreimer Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 20:28:00 ARG Subject: Re: SHK 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons > I was wondering if anyone had seen and/or taped the new series of HBO > Shakespeare cartoons (AYLI, RIII, Othello, etc.). They were on in January and > February, and I am trying to get a look at them. I want to continue some work > that I did on the earlier series. If someone is willing to send me their tape, > I faithfully promise to return it ASAP. You can reply off the list, if you > like. They are Random House productions. I have the HAMLET 30' version and it's wonderful! Nora Kreimer Buenos Aires Argentina ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:38:10 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0298 Re: SHK 7.0294 Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0298. Friday, 19 April 1996. (1) From: Joseph M Green Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 16:00:04 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0294 Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity) (2) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 11:17:50 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0294 Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity) (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 23:02:27 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0294 Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity) (4) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 11:28:08 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0294 Re: MND (Alienation) (5) From: Chris Stroffilino Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 07:13:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0294 Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 16:00:04 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0294 Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity) Thanks to Chris Stroffolino for his interesting remarks but I am not sure what is meant by MND subverting tragedy. Whose notion of tragedy? Shakespeare's (and what is it)? The "age's notion?" (And what is this)? And, once defined, how does MND do this? The play of Pyramus and Thisbe has fun with tragedy played this way but what does this or MND have to do with subverting Lear? Is it the tragic sense of life that is subverted, the genre generally, Shakespeare's notion? How? I also don't understand how Shakespeare generally subverts the claim to authenticity. Surely there are claims that are meant to be taken as true within the play (This is Illyria, lady) and Shakespeare is not always at pains to point out that this is, in fact, a big lie. Subverting all claims to authenticity seems to require that one continually repeat "This is only a play and plays are all lies anyway and can't have a damn true thing to say about anything in any way nd this is not Illyria and thank God the Bard has cleverly subverted that notion for me and that there is much truth in feigning is another big lie." (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 11:17:50 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0294 Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity) Mr Green recently wrote: >even if "enforced chastity" is taken to mean compulsory, it seems >fantastic to imagine that the moon and the little flowers >weep because men and women are forced to remain chaste until marriage and >that the audience is meant to view "free love" (or whatever Jan Kott had in >mind) as a good thing and weep with the little flowers. I have two questions: 1) Why is it fantastic to believe that forces of nature (the moon and the flowers) would be upset to look down at the male dominated, sexually and otherwise restrictive Athenian society and weep at it? Maybe the division that is being set up in this play is exactly that one? 2) What's the problem with anything being "fantastic" in a play entitled "A Midsummer Night's Dream"? I find myself, once again, jumping to the defense of these plays as PLAYS. What Shakespeare may or may not have intended is only marginally relevant (and not very likely to be acurately captured) when one approaches his works as pieces that are intended for the stage. Fluidity of meaning and multiplicity of interpretation is what keeps these plays vital and interesting, and what keeps the audience returning to the theatre. Chris Stroffolino; Thanks so much for that Brecht poem. I think his (and your) comments regarding self-consciousness in the process of creating art are particularly compelling. Shirley Kagan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 23:02:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0294 Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity) Joseph Green writes: >It is hard to imagine little Elizabethan flowers >weeping because maidens and a fairy queens are denied a Kottian coupling -- >unless thay are to be understood as having made the acquaintance of Master >Mustardseed. I don't find it hard to imagine. MND is a comedy, and, of course, I lack high seriousness. But then I suspect that many of Shakespeare's original auditors also lacked high seriousness, but did possess an awareness of comic irony. I'll bet some of them at least grinned when they watched Titania take the transformed Bottom off stage and heard her talking about "enforced chastity." After all, she hasn't been getting any sex from her husband: that's enforced chastity. And now I gather she has plans. Yours, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 11:28:08 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0294 Re: MND (Alienation) Chris Stroffolino is right to refer to Brecht, who also said that 'bad' acting offers valuable insights into the way drama works. That is exactly what the 'rude mechanicals' are for. Speaking of alienation, did anyone else at the World Shakespeare Congress have the impression that Los Angeles was closed? T. Hawkes (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffilino Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 07:13:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0294 Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity) Joseph Green---you raise a lot of interesting points, and I can not address them all right now, but I don't think it makes me a KOTTian to say that Titania's lament of enforced chastity does seem to be more of a lament against "NOT having sex" than "having it." Although she wishes to purge Bottom of his gross physicality so he may like an airy spirit go, she is certainly meant to be contrasted with the other females in the play (Hermia and Hippolyta and to a lesser extent Helena) who HOLD OFF from men (Hippolyta in first scene and Hermia "lie not so near Lysander"). One could say her holding off from Oberon's will makes her similar to the other two women (PROUD TITANIA etc), but since they are the only couple that is married, the terms of the "holding off" is different (enter the changeling child and Oberon's refusal to "dance patiently" but rather have to plot and scheme---It is this plotting and scheming that links him with the other men of the play and to a lesser extent Helena). It has often been commented that the only scene of tenderness in MND is the Bottom-Titania affair, despite all the talk of love. Perhaps Master Mustardseed is the HONEST NEIGHBOR than that does away not only with the dualism of "reason" and "love" but also of "airy spirits" and "sensuality." The reading you deride IS fantastic, and maybe even unrepresentable on the stage (as Hazlitt argued)... but I'm glad actors keep trying. Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:41:12 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0299 Shakespeare Globe Website Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0299. Friday, 19 April 1996. From: Michael Mullin Date: Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 17:01:08 -0500 Subject: Shakespeare Globe Website Fellow Shakespeareans: The Shakespeare Globe USA Website aims to be a comprehensive first stop for Shakespeare on the Web. Please send suggestions for links to Shakespeare resources to me via SHAKSPER or through the Website: http://ampere.scale.uiuc.edu/shakespeare. Thank you. The Shakespeare Globe Website is a joint venture of the International Globe Centre and the University of Illinois. It is also supported by a grant from the Herbert D. Mendell Foundation. Michael Mullin, Education Director International Globe Centre (USA) Mid-America NOTE CHANGE OF EMAIL ADDRESS: m-mullin@uiuc.edu Effective 1 May 1996 Michael Mullin Department of English University of Illinois Urbana IL 61801 USA Vox. 217. 356. 0033 / 217.333.5858 Fax. 217.356.4060 / 217 333 4321 URL.http://ampere.scale.uiuc.edu/shakespeare========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 14:06:05 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0301 Re: Funeral Elegy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0301. Saturday, 21 April 1996. (1) From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 11:16:14 -0400 Subj: Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 10:53:21 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0297 Re: Funeral Elegy (3) From: Daniel M Larner Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 14:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0297 Re: Funeral Elegy (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 21:33:12 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Funeral Elegy (5) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Saturday, 20 Apr 1996 16:59:38 -0700 Subj: Re: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 11:16:14 -0400 Subject: Re: Funeral Elegy Perhaps, as a public service--akin to the warnings broadcast immediately before TV shows with violent and/or sexual content--a warning statement of some kind ought to be prefixed to Joseph Green's posts. I'm thankful, for the sake of the list and for its editor, that the Exxon bill is currently in abeyance, and yet I also hope that no minors have been exposed to the Funeral Elegy track. Feeling violated, --Chris Fassler (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 10:53:21 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0297 Re: Funeral Elegy Don Foster is mistaken: Ward Elliott's McKenna Claremont program is a much better test for authorship than Shaxicon, brilliant in comparison with Shaxicon, treating of dramatic verse and poetry with a delicacy and balance of judgment that makes Shaxicon look like a middle-school exercise to test and sort verbs apart from nouns. Don Foster, of course, is a beginner in the field and, it would seem, ignorant of the more advanced literature on the subject of stylometrics. May I advise him to read Jim Helfers excellent post of March 25th that he may study the work of Elliott and his colleague Robert Valenza, who have "pioneered" some stratistical refinements that a novice -- I mean Foster -- would do well to understand before he tries to march Shaxicon any farther, for he does but trample where a discreet and sure-footed step is needed. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel M Larner Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 14:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0297 Re: Funeral Elegy SHAKSPERians-- With regard to Joseph Green's "revisionary praxis" of a "possible non- intersection of textual surfaces,"--this "creme brulee," as he puts it, with scarcely disguised wit, is not, as he alleges, a "denial of politics" at all. It is, on the contrary--simply wonderful! Thanks. Dan Larner (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 21:33:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Funeral Elegy Don Foster writes: "FE, written in continuous verse without any stanzaic breaks, has a GL of 22. The only other text tested by Elliott with a GL higher than 19 is Heywood's *Troia Britannica*, also in continuous verse without stanzaic breaks; while other non-Shakespearean textsin continuous verse tend to hover around 16-18. When adjusted for stanzaic form, FE should register a GL between 19 and 24 if written by Shakespeare. At GL 22, it's right on the money." I think I understand most of this, but the phrase "When adjusted for stanzaic form" puzzles me. Obviously FE is not in stanzaic form, and so the phrase must be a negative: when adjusted for not being in stanzaic form. But how is such an adjustment made? I think a crucial calculation or series of caluclations has been dropped out of the explanation. Earlier Don tells us: "The poems have a higher GL because they are written in stanzaic form without the frequent breaks of dramatic dialogue: they vary thus from GL 10 to GL 22. PhT, having a four-line stanza, has a GL of 8. " I don't understand this comment. (I assume that "The poems" means "Shakespeare's poems." Am I correct?) Given that PhT has a GL of 8, shouldn't the poems vary from GL 8 to the top number? And where does GL 22 come from? Only in FE does the GL rise to 22 -- in the samples given in the posting at any rate, where the Sonnets are highest with a median of GL 13. Shouldn't Shakespeare's known GL in non-dramatic verse range from 8 to 13? Am I missing something here? Yours, Bill Godshalk (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Saturday, 20 Apr 1996 16:59:38 -0700 Subject: Re: Funeral Elegy Shaxicon has compared John Ford's early verse with that of W.S., unknown writer of the Funeral Elegy. It can find no similarity between the two poets. Here is the beginning line of John Ford's major elegy and the beginning line of the Funeral Elegy: Ford: "Swift Time, the speedy pursuivant of heaven...." W.S.: "Since Time, and his predestined end...." Shaxicon doesn't see the likeness. And then here are the concluding lines of another John Ford elegy and the Funeral Elegy: Ford: "Sleep in peace: thus happy hast thou prov'd Thou mightst have died more known, not more belov'd." W.S.: "Who herein hast forever happy prov'd: In life thou livdst, in death thou died belov'd." Shaxicon doesn't see the likeness, and cannot really be blamed for that. All Shaxicon can really do is count things; it has no notion of meaning. Well, then, here is a count of 4-syllable words in 578 lines, John Ford's major poem, the Funeral Elegy, and the Sonnets. Ford: 69 W.S.: 62 Sonnets: 15. Now this is something that Shaxicon can understand, but it takes no notice of this 300% difference between the Sonnets and the Funeral Elegy.. It was not programmed to notice long words, evidently. However, that's an important stylistic disparity, a significant mismatch between Shakespeare's non- dramatic poetry and the Funeral Elegy. Then there is the quality of the poetry itself. Shaxicon cannot answer for that, not knowing poetry from shinola, something which Don Foster admits, and he should know.because he created Shaxicon. Those who believe the Funeral Elegy to be written by Shakespeare must answer for themselves how Shakespeare could have written that miserable poem (Foster admits it) in the same year he wrote the Tempest. It's an outstanding descent, a monumental failure, such a fall from grace not recorded of any poet in all the world since the beginning of time. Shaxicon doesn't know a thing about that, and Don Foster tells us that it's a mere detail. On the other hand, John Ford could write such a piece of bootpolish as the Funeral Elegy with his eyes closed, or filled with tears in reverence and inward weeping for the mismanagement of Fate, all the world treating the subject of the memorial (and himself) with such malice as one would not expect to be attached to such saints. One of Ford's editors describes his early verse as so much "whining", and that matches well with the Funeral Elegy. Does Don Foster, et al, really think that the Funeral Elegy has not been seen before? Do they think that Chambers didn't read it, or Schoenbaum, or Halliwell-Phillips, Rouse, Spurgeon, Hotson, Langbaine, Malone, Chalmers, Steevens, Dowden, Harrison, Lee.....? The list of exhalted Shakespearean scholars who must have read and put aside the Funeral Elegy would fill pages. Can we believe they actually overlooked a poem by "W.S.". leaving Shaxicon to make the discovery that the Funeral Elegy was written by Shakespeare? Not bloody likely. I understand that the poem is going to be read by "four voices" soon in Maine. It might be a good show. A weeping violin would fit in nicely, and certainly Shaxicon will be trotted out, perhaps in a cage, a "beast that wants discourse of reason". I can't make it. If there might be jugglers and acrobats I would reconsider. But, no. The bathos of the thing can't be endured. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 14:15:04 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0302 Re: Theory and Branagh Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0302. Saturday, 21 April 1996. (1) From: Peter Herman Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 09:00:33 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons (2) From: Eileen Flanagan Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 11:23:00 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and (3) From: Chris Gordon Date: Saturday, 20 Apr 96 13:58:57 -0500 Subj: Branagh's productions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Herman Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 09:00:33 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons In response to David Shalkwyk's query, I have two responses. First, I cavil with the term, "the advent of theory," which assumes a period that is *without* theory. That, of course, is nonsense, and as Gerald Graff's marvelous book, _Professing Literature_, shows in copious detail, the arguments surrounding "theory" today have been a part of this profession since it's inception sometime in the mid-nineteenth century. Second, my impression is that Shakespeare criticism has suffered no diminution because of the introduction of canon criticism, deconstruction, and the like. In fact, it seems to have only increased production as new areas opened up (e.g., working on the ideology of post-Renaissance constructions of Shakespeare, editing practices, manuscript culture, and the like). To prove the point, one could look at the MLA Bibliography every year to see how many items there are on Shakespeare, or-- and this might be a better option-- the annual bibliography in _Shakespeare Quarterly_. Along these lines, one of the criticisms of the New Historicism is that despite its professed attention to marginalized voices, it has in effect reproduced the canon rather than opening it up. Peter C. Herman Dept. of English GSU (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eileen Flanagan Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 11:23:00 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and I believe Mr. Branagh wrote quite a bit about HENRY V in his autobiography BEGINNING. It's toward the end of the book. He also writes of his initial experience with HENRY V at the RSC at little earlier in the book. In fact the book ends with the wrap of the HENRY V film. The book should be available in libraries and bookstores. VTY, Eileen Flanagan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Gordon Date: Saturday, 20 Apr 96 13:58:57 -0500 Subject: Branagh's productions Dear David Schalkwyk: I have copies of Branagh's screenplays for both *Henry V* and *Much Ado*: he has essays about the productions in each of them. He also wrote about the film version of *Henry V* in his book *Beginning,* which I also have. I would be happy to copy and send you this material if you're interested. Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 14:17:46 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0303 Shakespeare on the web Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0303. Saturday, 21 April 1996. From: Patricia Cooke Date: Saturday, 20 Apr 1996 10:31:17 +1200 Subject: Shakespeare on the web Shakespeareans in other places - We have just opened a website for the Shakespeare Globe Centre New Zealand at http://www.vuw.ac.nz/Drama/SGCNZ.html which tells about our involvement with the Globe and what we do here in New Zealand, especially for schools. I look forward to exploring the new site. Patricia Cooke Secretary/Editor, SGCNZ Shakespeare Globe Centre New Zealand Inc 97 Elizabeth Street Wellington 6001 New Zealand PH/FAX 64 4 3856743 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 14:23:44 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0304 Re: MND (Chastity); Texts; Visual Interpretation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0304. Saturday, 21 April 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 20:11:56 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0294 Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity) (2) From: William Proctor Williams Date: Saturday, 20 Apr 96 12:30 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0293 Re: Texts (3) From: Christine Jacobson Date: Saturday, 20 Apr 1996 17:11:38 -0700 (MST) Subj: Visually Interpretive Skill vs. Textual Analysis Skills (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 19 Apr 1996 20:11:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0294 Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity) Regarding "enforced chastity," David Bevington in his edition comments: "forced, violated; or. possibly, constrained (since Titania at this moment in hardly concerned about chastity)." Accept for the qualification "possibly," Bevington's gloss seems right on target to me. But, then, I think Don Hedrick's interpretation is right on target too. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Proctor Williams Date: Saturday, 20 Apr 96 12:30 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0293 Re: Texts In response to Milla's postings about texts, and I hate to suggest that John Andrews', or any one's should be put out of the loop, there is the choice of going to the STC microfilm, or to the various facsimilies, and generating a text by photocopy which is the "original." I think anyone who can act Shakespeare could be quickly taught the long s i-j u-v w conventions. Then they go from there. What they find defective in the text may be of real interest to scholars. I have been troubled for years with acting companies using the "filter" of Arden, Bevington, Evans, etc. as a way to get at the text on stage. I think Alan Dessen would agree with this proposal. This may, initially, be a bit more clumsy than using a "prepared" text, but I think it will, could, work. What do you on the list, who work with the stage regularly, think? William Proctor Williams Department of English Northern Illinois University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Jacobson Date: Saturday, 20 Apr 1996 17:11:38 -0700 (MST) Subject: Visually Interpretive Skill vs. Textual Analysis Skills This message is in response to Jamison Porter's posting of April 3/96 in which he decries the difficulty in presenting Shakespearean texts for interpretation to a class of today's more visually literate student bodies. I recently attempted to produce a term paper for my course 312b Shakespeare first, reading four Shakespeare plays and then attempting to judge their translations into film. In so doing, I realized that there are a couple of difficulties, one, in particular, of analysising verbal images, symbol in spite of copius quantities of various visual stimulations and distractions. If nothing else, it made me realize the importance of film analysis, period, into verbal written expression, especially in light of today's prevelant visual productions - T.V., movie industry, music videos, etc. One step towards taming this sensual influx and retaining verbal and analytical skills would be to provide Film journalistic format courses on works of such bards as Shakespeare. I guess you'd have to begin in high school. Christine Jacobson CJACOB@acd.mhc.ab.ca ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 16:22:17 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0305 Re: Funeral Elegy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0305. Monday, 22 April 1996. (1) From: Jeff Powers-Beck Date: Monday, 22 Apr 96 11:55:27 EDT Subj: Funeral Elegy Project (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 22 Apr 1996 09:40:16 -0700 Subj: Re: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Powers-Beck Date: Monday, 22 Apr 96 11:55:27 EDT Subject: Funeral Elegy Project PROJECT W.S. Did he or didn't he? That was the question taken up by English 4957/5957, a course on literature and computers at East Tennessee State University. The special topics course, entitled "Poetry, Print, and Hypertext," participated in the Internet debate as to whether William Shakespeare wrote "A Funeral Elegy for Master William Peter." Recently, Professor Donald Foster of Vassar College made national headlines for using a computer database called Shaxicon to attribute the poem to Shakespeare. The seven ETSU students in the course studied the 1612 poem, corresponded with Foster via e-mail, and then answered three questions in a World Wide Web project: Was the elegist W.S. the dramatist William Shakespeare? Is "A Funeral Elegy" a significant or interesting poem? And, if Shakespeare wrote the elegy, what does it say about his life and work? In addition to answers to these questions, Project W.S. offers the complete text of the 578-line poem, the students' commentary on some fifty lines of the poem, photographs of the students, other graphics, and a thorough bibliography. The student Internet project is located at http://www.east-tenn-st.edu/~english/projws.htm. Dr. Jeffrey Powers-Beck, Assistant Professor of English and the instructor of English 4957/5957, serves as Project W.S. Editor. For the students and Dr. Powers-Beck, Project W.S. was certainly not _Much Ado About Nothing_ or one of _Love's Labour's Lost_. E-mail responses to Project W.S. may be addressed to powersbj@etsu.east-tenn-st.edu. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 22 Apr 1996 09:40:16 -0700 Subject: Re: Funeral Elegy Someone informs me that Don Foster has more experience with computer programs than Ward Elliott. In that case, I don't know what excuse can be made for Shaxicon, and I am sorry I called it inexperience, but you will understand that it looks so much like inexperience that I was fooled. My apologies to Don Foster. There must be some other reason that Shaxicon is so stupid about the Funeral Elegy. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 16:38:33 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0306 Re: Texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0306. Monday, 22 April 1996. (1) From: Milla Riggio Date: Sunday, 21 Apr 1996 16:18:01 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Texts (2) From: Dale Lyles Date: Sunday, 21 Apr 1996 22:43:19 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0304 Texts (3) From: Peter L Groves Date: Monday, 22 Apr 1996 16:44:22 GMT+1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0291 Re: Texts (4) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Monday, 22 Apr 1996 07:17:28 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0304 Re:Texts (5) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Monday, 22 Apr 1996 13:26:30 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0304 Re: Texts (6) From: Edward Pixley Date: Monday, 22 Apr 1996 13:55:38 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0304 Re: Texts (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Sunday, 21 Apr 1996 16:18:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Texts In answer to William Procter Williams query about actors: What exactly do you mean by filtering the actors' attempts to get AT Shakespeare on the stage? The actors I've worked with are trying to GET Shakespeare on the stage. A good dramaturg can provide all the variant readings one could possibly find - and should do so. The dramaturg should also have a facsimile at hand, if possible of every major early text, to provide options of punctuation, spelling, possible punning, aberrant readings, whatever you like. But why would modern actors want to struggle to read the orthography, never mind the older spellings, or early printed texts? Perhaps an actor herself might want to reply. Certainly in our Romeo and Juliet, it was the idea of the director that his actors SHOULD have the experience of reading SOME early spellings, just to keep them aware of the historicity of the play they were dealing with. But when we came to Juliet talking about "men as old as we," the carelessness of our particular text came to haunt us. Perhaps a more careful version might be useful....Who's out there to answer Williams' question more authoritatively? Probably my last word on this subject, you'll be glad to hear. Milla Riggio (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Sunday, 21 Apr 1996 22:43:19 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0304 Texts William Proctor Williams suggests that using a facsimile of the Qs and Fs might be an interesting way to get around the "filtering" involved in using edited texts. At least in our situation, using a facsimile would be counterproductive. Why would actors want to battle their way through difficult typography and orthography? As for relying on "filtered" texts, that's what the director and/or dramaturg are for in our company, to alert actors to the fact that there might be an important variant reading to a line. Many's the time I've asked actors to understand that other readings were possible, and many's the time they've elected the variant reading because it made more sense to them. Also, and I may really be out of my depth here, I can't see how a facsimile would be any less "filtered," if we are to assume that at least some of the variants are printers' errors. (Or maybe that's Williams' point--that the filtering done by a group of actors might be worthy of study...) Finally, in 1981, I had the audacity to give the cast of *Much Ado* carefully pasted-up sides instead of full scripts. I have yet to hear the end of whining over *that* experiment, although of course they learned their lines in record time. I shudder to imagine what would happen if I handed out a facsimile side! Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company Newnan, GA http://shenandoah.peachnet.edu/~dlyles/nctc/nctc.html (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L Groves Date: Monday, 22 Apr 1996 16:44:22 GMT+1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0291 Re: Texts Michael Kischner asks, anent the Everyman *Hamlet*: >'To the Celestial and my Soul's Idol, the most *beautiful* Ophelia -- ' That's >an ill Phrase, a vile Phrase; *'beautified'* is a vile Phrase. . . >Where can that "beautiful" (instead of "beautified") have come from? Neither Q2 >nor F1, I gather. The answer is implicit in the question: it is from the execrable Q1 . Corambis (Polonius) is quoting from Hamlet's letter: ...But doe not doubt I loue. To the beautiful *Ofelia:* Thine euer the most vnhappy prince *Hamlet*. My Lord, what doe you thinke of me? No mention here of "beautified". To import this obvious memorial reconstruction/regularization into a modern text of *Hamlet* (and thus to make nonsense of P.'s "beautifed") is surely to carry editorial incompetence and folly to new and unexplored heights. Peter Groves, Department of English, Monash University, Melbourne, (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Monday, 22 Apr 1996 07:17:28 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0304 Re:Texts Having worked as an actor and as a coach to actors of Shakespeare in Canada and on faculty at the National Voice Intensive, which coaches actors in an approach to Shakespeare, I have always used Folio texts, combined with something else, usually Arden. I'm a fan, and I work with the Folio text from early days of rehearsal. Most actors I encounter are struggling to make sense of the text of ANY edition. They like the convenience of an edition that stops them having to do ALL the hard work of looking up words in the OED. However, many actors are enlightened and inspired by looking at the layers of meaning they find in the OED. In fact, not having editorial content challenges many actors to do the homework they need, instead of relying on the homework the editor thought they needed. Using "original" texts is nothing new in the actors world. Recently it has been popularized by such "controversial" figures as Neil Freeman of the University of British Columbia. His proposition that punctuation, capitalization, orthography and "long-spellings" are actor-information, a "secret code" left for us to figure out by Heminge and Condell, is often supported by actors while being despised by academics. His slightly more respected (that's debateable too) British counterpart, Patrick Tucker, who is popularizing a form of Shakespeare performance derived from Elizabethan practice, has also brought back the Folio texts. The inexpensive Applause Facsimile comes from Doug Moston, who worked with Tucker in NYC. Whether you go with a "philosophy" (ie Freeman or Tucker) or not, I would say that many actors LOATHE reading the "funny letters", and are pleased to see editions with modern typography at least. (Neil Freeman sells an edition that he has developed with modern typography.) Also, the very cramped facsimile page may be hard to read on the first go, but it is handy if photocopied and folded in half - fits in the hand just nicely and because it is so compact, you can get a big scene on one page of paper. But there is no room for blocking notes, acting notes, etc. so it is far from perfect. Getting back to "editors choices", I think that actors like to feel in control. If there are choices to be made about meaning and interpretation, they want to be consulted - the more information they have, the happier they are. I particularly like the fact that Arden tells you when it deviates from Folio, quarto and all those - so I can make the choice myself. I play with the suggestions of Freeman and Tucker, and see what works for me - I find it informative and liberating. Understanding rhetoric, dialectic, word play... all these are made easier when working with the Folio - the punctuation really does help you see how ideas may "flow" through the argument. I hope this helps you see how actors might approach working with the "originals". Eric Armstrong School of Dramatic Art - University of Windsor, Canada. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Monday, 22 Apr 1996 13:26:30 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0304 Re: Texts >What do you on the list, who work with the stage regularly, think? I think the old folios and quartos, rife as they are with compositor errors, apparent misreadings, printer emendations, and all those premodern typographical habits whose subtle significances are wildly disagreed about, especially by nonscholars, make bad scripts for performance, since they involve actors and directors in a lot of editorial wheel reinvention that has nothing to do with acting or directing. Rather than discard centuries of textual study directors can construct a script of their own liking from a selection of editions and facsimiles. The Arden is handy in this regard since it tends to discuss its editorial decisions, giving readers some basis for making their own. To me most versions, being intended for readers, are overpunctuated for actors and contribute to the fractured momentumless delivery we are used to hearing on the stage. I always eradicate semicolons and decimate commas before starting rehearsal. Scott Shepherd (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Pixley Date: Monday, 22 Apr 1996 13:55:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0304 Re: Texts In response to Wm Proctor Williams about use of folio facsimiles for production texts. In my SUNY-Oneonta production of +The Scottish Play+ in 1989-90, on the advice of Alan Dessen and Neil Freeman, I used the first folio as text. Not having a scanner, I typed the Riverside edition into my computer, then with the folio in front of me, edited the entire work to the folio conventions. In my margins I noted all editorial changes, especially in line-length, but also in much of the spelling and punctuation. This edited version then became our text. During the first week of rehearsals, together as a company we worked our way through the text, with Riverside, Pelican, and Arden beside us, taking advantage of the scholarship thus available, but having the early printing to offer us our own options in the reading of the text. I highly recommend this process. The cast, many having their first experience in Shakespeare production, thrived on the process. Among other things, it took away the fear of treading on hallowed ground. Though we could use, we did not rely upon the experts. We had to make our own choices among many possibilities, including choices that the experts had rejected in their editorial wisdom. It was fun to have Seyton not make an exit and reentrance before announcing the Lady's demise. How did he know? The question led to an interpretive choice that is not prescribedby the folio, but one that seemed to make sense. He became an in-house representative of the dark forces,frequently watching the Thane and others, to make sure that they were taking the bait, moving toward their own damnation. Birnham Wood, in our production made up of boughs of Scotch Pine, not only transformed the color of the show, which remained until the end, since the folio gives no direction for their removal, but in our small Elizabethan Playhouse reconstruction, added a marvelously fresh aroma, a true breathing of life into Scotland by Malcolm's reclaiming of his rights. I know that this process is followed fairly commonly today, and I do not presume to be original in its use. But for those unaware of its potential, start with Dessen's and Freeman's wonderful scholarship, and then try it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 16:51:32 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0307 Re: Subverting; Visual Interpretation; Theory Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0307. Monday, 22 April 1996. (1) From: Chris Stroffilino Date: Sunday, 21 Apr 1996 18:30:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0298 Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity) (2) From: Scott Crozier Date: Monday, 22 Apr 1996 11:34:31 +1000 Subj: Re: Visual Interpretation (3) From: David Schalkwyk Date: Monday, 22 Apr 1996 10:57:02 SAST-2 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0302 Re: Theory and Branagh (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffilino Date: Sunday, 21 Apr 1996 18:30:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0298 Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity) Dear Joseph Green-- Thanks for your engaged questions about what I mean by "subverting tragedy." I will not go so far as to claim that it subverts LEAR (which was written later, and was a kind of tragedy I'd dare say that didn't EXIST yet when MND was written, at least in Elizabethan England). Nor will I venture at this time a "general claim" about "the tragic sense of life" (though, I would ask YOU to define more clearly what you mean by that). Instead, I will (perhaps more modestly) claim that it must be remembered that it is not simply the actors (Bottom, etc) who are being criticized, but the PLAY (the tragedy rewrit as "lamentable comedy") of PYRAMUS AND THISBY in the play. And this criticism is both made by characters in the play, and by the structure of the play itself. Insofar as the story of Hermia and Lysander starts out as very similar to P&T. Now, what is it that distinguishes the H&L plot from the P&T story? In part the presence of the fairies, and the valorization of the need for illusion, and the way this calls into question the SILLINESS and vapidity even of the ROLES H&L cast themselves in (unconsciously) in the beginning of the play. It is this "cheap tragic sense of life" that is what the play sets about to subvert (just as MUCH ADO uses B&B and Dogberry) to subvert the conventional "tragic" sense of the H&C plot. Now, considering the fact that Shakespeare had only written TA and R&J at this time (or was about to write the latter) in a tragic mode, and considering the similarity of RJ to PT, and also the differences between R&J and MND, which may be read as two different "answers" to the question of how to subvert the stock, and for Shakespeare obviously reductive, Pyramus and Thisby story, I think such comic subversion of MND does not have to be read as rejecting a tragic sense of life, but as redefining both "tragedy" and "comedy" in ways that call attention to the generic conventions that the characters in the play have been casting themselves in Actually, at this point I will appeal to the authority of RON MCDONALD (hi, ron!), who writing of the more "conventional" plot of MUCH ADO says---"It is not so much that the main plot seems constructed in obedience to conventional protocol as that the characters in that plot behave AS IF it were."(78) Now, I'm dealing with a different play here, but I believe this insight applies to MND as well, and what is attractive about it (and, yes, subversive) is that it makes ME question MY OWN investment in a certain cliche, and conventional rhetoric of 'love' that makes certain assumptions about life. I mean to say that "if all the world is a stage", then EVERY ONE OF US is playing a part and casting ourselves (whether consciously or not) in some role and even possibly making genre assumptions. Is life a "tragedy" or a "comedy" or a "hybrid genre?" The way "art" is shown to construct identity unconsciously, I take it to be one of Shakespeare's essential "lessons"--and if art does construct identity unconsciously, by making us CONSCIOUS of that, S's plays allow me at least to consider different ways of doing so, in short, THE POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE.... One last point, I would disagree with your characterization of what I'm claiming Shakespeare to be doing (when you write "SUBVERTING ALL CLAIMS TO AUTHENTICITY seems to require that one continually repeat 'this is only a play....'"). I would argue that there is a way to subvert all claims to authenticity without having to CONTINUALLY repeat this. In fact, those postmodern writers (such as some of the so-called LANGUAGE poets) who do deny the value of the illusion of narrative, of verisimilitude, etc., and who do, I would argue, "constantly" repeat "this is a lie"-- these writers are not as effective as Shakespeare precisely because they are too constant in their "subversion"---Shakespeare BUILDS AS HE DESTROYS, I wouldn't go so far as to say he simply "builds to destroy"--but there are MANY references in the plays (of all genres) to the "fictiveness" of so-called "reality" and in such a world the "fool" and the "clown" (and other neglected characters, and utterances) take on more importance because they are aware of this. This does not mean that there are NO VALUES in S's plays. I am not arguing for a nihilistic reading, but that these values are social values, and exist in a "always already" social world in which "authenticity" is a question of "choice." Benedick, in MUCH ADO, for instance, chooses a certain "authenticity" when he sides with BEATRICE against CLAUDIO. This authenticity is TRUE for its time, but provisional. Best, Chris (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Monday, 22 Apr 1996 11:34:31 +1000 Subject: Re: Visual Interpretation Christine Jacobson wrote of the difficulty she had developing a course comparing textual analysis and visual interpretation. She may already know about it, but if she doesn't Dennis Kennedy's "Looking at Shakespeare" and "Foreign Shakespeare" are a good starting point. Her point, however, raises an even more interesting one to me and that is the connection between textual criticism and productions. We all know of the debt that Brook and others have with Kott, but are there other productions that members of the list know about where a director was heavily influenced by textual criticism of the time? Regards, Scott Crozier (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Schalkwyk Date: Monday, 22 Apr 1996 10:57:02 SAST-2 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0302 Re: Theory and Branagh Thanks to everyone who responded so promptly and helpfully to my queries abut Branagh and theory. I take Peter Herman's point about theory and its advent. My formulation owed everything to convenience and haste; little to careful thought. But the suggestion that ineterest in Shakespeare has grown with the advent of theories which emphasise the marginal confirms what I had suspected. The question now remains: why? David Schalkwyk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 14:21:44 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0308 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: LOOSE ENDS Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0308. Tuesday, 23 April 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, April 23, 1996 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: LOOSE ENDS As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve Yashdip Bains's essay "Loose Ends and Inconsistencies in the First Quarto of Shakespeare's Hamlet? (Hamlet Studies 18 (1996): 94-104)" (LOOSE ENDS) from the SHAKSPER Fileserver. To retrieve "Loose Ends and Inconsistencies in the First Quarto of Shakespeare's Hamlet?", send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET LOOSE ENDS". Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, please contact the editor at or . ******************************************************************************* Loose Ends and Inconsistencies in the First Quarto of Shakespeare's Hamlet? (Hamlet Studies 18 (1996): 94-104) by Y. S. Bains University of Cincinnati In their reprint of 1825, Payne and Foss treated Q1 as the "only known copy of this tragedy as originally written by Shakespeare, which he afterwards altered and enlarged" [H. H. Furness, ed., Hamlet, New Variorum (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1905), II, 14] . In the nineteenth century, Charles Knight was a prominent exponent of the revision theory and John Payne Collier that of the opposite view [See Furness, II, 5-36]. G. R. Hibbard and most other modern editors belong to Collier's camp. According to Hibbard, one of the problems with the First Quarto of Shakespeare's Hamlet is that it has many "loose ends and inconsistencies in the conduct of action and in the nomenclature of some of the characters" [G. R. Hibbard, ed., Hamlet, Oxford Shakespeare (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1987), p. 72. Page numbers of further references to this work will be inserted in the text]. While conceding that most of the Shakespeare scripts contain some unresolved contradictions and some incoherent passages, Hibbard and other editors contend that Q1 has unfortunately a large number of them. For Hibbard and other critics, Q1 is a corrupt text because it is a memorial reconstruction of Q2 which presumably had been performed in the theatre several years before the publication of Q1 in 1603. They try to explain the origin of the "loose ends and inconsistencies" by suggesting arbitrarily that a pirate reconstructed Q1 from memory after having acted in Q2. What Hibbard and other scholars have never provided is any reliable evidence for their dating of Q2 or for the theory of memorial reconstruction. This theory has prejudiced readers against the authenticity of Q1 and treated actors and publishers unjustly. Consequently, as Frank G. Hubbard has stressed, "Students of Hamlet literature have for so long seen the First Quarto through the Second, that it is not to be expected their obliquity of vision can easily be corrected" [Frank G. Hubbard, ed., "The First Quarto Edition of Shakespeare's Hamlet," University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literatuare, No. 8 (1920), p. 7]. By examining closely each of the seven cases of "loose ends and inconsistencies" that Hibbard has identified as problematic, this study seeks to rebut his general conclusions about the quality of the text of Q1. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 14:24:21 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0309 The Shakespeare Authorship Web Site Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0309. Tuesday, 23 April 1996. From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Monday, 22 Apr 1996 17:57:02 +0100 Subject: Authorship Web Site In honor of William Shakespeare's 432nd birthday (Happy Birthday, Will!), we are happy to announce The SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP WEB SITE at http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~tross/ws/will.html Dedicated to critically examining claims that someone other than William Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him. Introduction ------------ Many books and articles have been written arguing that someone other than William Shakespeare, the glover's son from Stratford-upon-Avon, wrote the plays and poems published under his name. There exist sincere and intelligent people who believe that there is strong evidence that Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, was actually the author of these plays and poems. Yet professional Shakespeareans -- those whose job it is to study, write, and teach about Shakespeare -- are unanimous in declaring Oxfordian claims to be groundless, often not even worth discussing. Why is this? Oxfordians claim that these scholars are blinded to the evidence by a vested self-interest in preserving the authorship of "the Stratford Man", and some more extreme Oxfordians claim that there is an active conspiracy among orthodox scholars to suppress pro-Oxford evidence and keep it from the attention of the general public. The truth, however, is far more prosaic. Oxfordians are not taken seriously by the Shakespeare establishment because (with few exceptions) they do not follow basic standards of scholarship, and the "evidence" they present for their fantastic scenarios is either distorted, taken out of context, or flat-out false. This web site is aimed at the intelligent nonspecialist who doesn't know what to make of these challenges to Shakespeare's authorship. Oxfordian books can be deceptively convincing to a reader who is unaware of the relevant historical background and unused to the rhetorical tricks used by Oxfordians. Our aim is to provide context where needed, expose misinformation passed off by Oxfordians as fact, and in general show the nonspecialist reader why professional Shakespeare scholars have so little regard for Oxfordian claims. We know from experience that we are not likely to convince any Oxfordians to change their views, but we hope that other readers will find something of value here. We will be updating and adding new material as time permits, and we welcome any comments or suggestions. Dave Kathman (djk1@midway.uchicago.edu) Terry Ross (tross@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 14:28:51 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0310 Dramaturg(e)s; Texts; Funeral Elegy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0310. Tuesday, 23 April 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 22 Apr 1996 20:38:36 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0306 Re: Texts and Dramaturg(e)s (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 22 Apr 1996 22:48:54 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0306 Re: Texts (3) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 23 Apr 1996 09:19:59 -0700 Subj: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 22 Apr 1996 20:38:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0306 Re: Texts and Dramaturg(e)s This is definitely a side issue, but a vexing one when Professors of English and directors of plays come together to talk. And that is: how does one spell and thus pronouce "dramaturg(e)"? The American Heritage Dictionary recognizes only "dramaturge" and has the last syllable pronounced as "urge." It's analogous to "demiurge." But I notice recently that actors and directors seem to prefer "dramaturg" with a final "g" as in "get." English professors, on the other hand, seem to prefer "dramaturge." It would be nice if we could all agree. Since the word comes from the French, maybe we could give it a French pronunciation! Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 22 Apr 1996 22:48:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0306 Re: Texts Peter Groves writes of John Andrew's editorial substitution : >. . . it is from the execrable Q1 . Corambis >(Polonius) is quoting from Hamlet's letter: > > ...But doe not doubt I loue. > To the beautiful *Ofelia:* > Thine euer the most vnhappy prince *Hamlet*. > My Lord, what doe you thinke of me? > >No mention here of "beautified". To import this obvious memorial >reconstruction/regularization into a modern text of *Hamlet* (and thus to make >nonsense of P.'s "beautifed") is surely to carry editorial incompetence and >folly to new and unexplored heights. Although I won't defend the substitution, I would like to point out that the first Quarto is not an "obvious memorial reconstruction." Perhaps one might say that it is "arguably" a memorial reconstruction. We have no external evidence from the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century that plays were reconstructed by memory, and it has been argued very forcefully that the internal evidence for such reconstruction is faulty. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 23 Apr 1996 09:19:59 -0700 Subject: Funeral Elegy William Gifford edited the WORKS OF JOHN FORD in three vols., 1895, published again by Russell & Russell, 1965. It is he who wrote of Ford's "whining" in his early verse, and that would include "Fame's Memorial" and the "Funeral Elegy", although he was unaware of the latter. We know that Ford was a Devonshire man, the same as William Peter, and a friend of the family, and Shakespeare can in no way be connected with the Elegy except in some flight of imagination, such as "he must have passed through the town where William Peter lived", which is seriously offered by the supporters of the Elegy as proof of Shakespeare's authorship. The similarity of the verse is not only in the soporific lilt, but in an attitude, a sort of petulant defense of the deceased from the slander of the world, a kind of wallowing in the malice and spite pooled all about the bereaved. It would seem to me (and to Gifford, I think), that the disgrace of the dead need not be called up, being crochety, overly jealous of name and honor, and in remembrance of swinish lies in the first place. But both Ford and W.S. dote on such material. Some examples follow, first from Fame's Memorial: Ford: "By vulgar censure's base unhappiness." "Time cannot wrong, nor envy shall not wound..." "Thus loving all, he liv'd belov'd of all, Save some whome emulation did enrage To spit the venom of their rancour's gall..." "Sink, blind detraction, into lowest earth...." "Avoided rumour of such foul defame...." "To hold him from the wreck of spite's impression..." "Of all his foes, backbiters, grudgers...." "Unjustly term'd disgraceful...." "Maugre the throat of malice, spite of spite...." Who needs it? And it goes on and on about the Earl of Devonshire like this. Who has not been slandered and the object of spite? Forget it, and especially forget it in my elegy. Shall I want my last remembrance to be about how much shit was thrown at me, good beloved man that I am? No, there is something almost purient here, the harping on the sluttish report of the crowd. But in the Funeral Elegy, W.S. has the same tendency. He embraces his man William Peter with the good will of a friend, but sets the scene on a dunghill. W.S. "Not that he was above the spleenful sense and spite of malice...." "-- proceeding from a nature as corrupt, The text of malice." "--That may disprove their malice, and confound uncivil loose opinions...." "Close-lurking whispers hidden forgeries...." "Defamation's spirit...." Both Fame's Memorial and the Funeral Elegy are the work of a crybaby. You'll understand why Gifford called it "uninteresting whining". Richard Abrams says instead that W.S. had an "interesting mind". Well, let him find it so, and let him weep and moan over the unkind treatment of the WS/Shakespeare theory when it is dead and gone, and if he writes poetry to illustrate the story it can't be any worse than John Ford's lamentable verse. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 18:49:43 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0311 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: REFORMAT HAMLET Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0311. Tuesday, 23 April 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, April 23, 1996 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: REFORMAT HAMLET As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve my seminar paper for the Sixth World Shakespeare Congress "Reformatting Hamlet: Creating a Q1 Hamlet for Television" (REFORMAT HAMLET) from the SHAKSPER Fileserver. To retrieve "Reformatting Hamlet: Creating a Q1 Hamlet for Television", send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET REFORMAT HAMLET". Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, please contact the editor at or . ******************************************************************************* Reformatting Hamlet: Creating a Q1 Hamlet for Television Hardy M. Cook For "Reformatting the Bard" Seminar, Sixth World Shakespeare Congress I have argued that television is a medium that has unique qualities that make it suitable to particular televisual and theatrical styles. Additionally, I have stressed the flexibility that television provides to us to analyze these productions in depth. However, I had not until this past summer considered using video technology physically to re-edit an existing "full-text" version of a play into a shorter Q1 (so-called "bad" quarto) version. Since the publication of The Division of the Kingdoms, many have investigated the "bad" quartos. A quality common in many of these seemingly disparate approaches to the transmission of these printed scripts is that they might provide us insights into actual performances. Operating under the premise that the first printed edition of Hamlet may indeed supply such theatrical insights, I re-edited The BBC TV Shakespeare Hamlet from its little more than three-and-a-half-hour-long, roughly full-text version into an approximately three-hour version, following the scene structure of Q1. Having completed my reconstruction, I now propose to describe my method and to explore some of the insights I have gained from this exercise. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 10:12:49 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0312 Re: Texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0312. Wednesday, 24 April 1996. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 23 Apr 1996 19:35:51 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0306 Re: Texts (2) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Wednesday, 24 Apr 96 08:21:38 EDT Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 22 Apr 1996 to 23 Apr 1996 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 23 Apr 1996 19:35:51 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0306 Re: Texts Eric Armstrong writes > Patrick Tucker, who is popularizing a form of >Shakespeare performance derived from Elizabethan practice, has also brought >back the Folio texts. Tucker really is as confused as this description suggests. But first some background. He believes that the players had no rehearsals and simply learnt their own cue-script (ie their lines with just a cue line to indicate where to begin) and turned up for the first performance. This practice he considers to be authentically Elizabethan and hence he uses the Folio. Yes, the Folio! The 20 year gap between Elizabeth's death and the printing of the Folio doesn't affect his terminology either. Nor does the existence of earlier, more theatrical, quartos, bother him one bit. To justify this intellectual laziness he too argues that the Folio's punctuation (esp. capitalization) contains coded information to actors. Really he just can't be bothered to understand the complex provenance of different early printed texts, so he's picked the Folio and by golly he's sticking to it. He fetishizes the Folio in the same way that the Shakespearean Originals series of play-texts fetishizes the early quartos. Indeed, he calls his troupe the Original Shakespeare Company. (Scene from Monty Python's Life of Shakespeare: Graham Chapman: Are you the Original Shakespeare Company? John Cleese: F**k off! We're the Shakespearean Originals Company!) Tucker's company recreate the conditions he believes obtained. Far from being worth an increased entrance fee (because the first performance is especially 'live and dangerous'!), the predictable choas of colliding bodies, misdirected speeches and confused panicky glances argues against his thesis. Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Wednesday, 24 Apr 96 08:21:38 EDT Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 22 Apr 1996 to 23 Apr 1996 Dramatongues and Texts: An advantage of using quarto AND Folio texts is that they frequently offer theatrically informed alternative readings. Working with professionals or with students, the binocular effect of seeing two ways of beginning a scene or three ways of negotiating the entry of a character quickly demonstrates just how these theatrical opportunities were invented and reinvented, inscribed and reinscribed. Whatever edition is used, imagination and invention must be supplied by the players. A bat, ball and gloves along with a beautiful baseball diamond still need avid players to become a ballgame. Lazy or intimidated players won't take even the finest equipment out to the adventuresome thrill of grace and flowing challenges that turn pastime into art. (Good grief! Springtime has enflowered my workyday prose. Mud! Gimme mud! an ounce of mud, good apothecary, to curb imagination.) Again, Steve Enflowerwitz ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 10:20:26 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0313 Re: Dramaturg(e)s Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0313. Wednesday, 24 April 1996. (1) From: T. Fred Wharton Date: Tuesday, 23 Apr 96 15:49:08 EDT Subj: Dramaturg(e) (2) From: Robert Lloyd Neblett Date: Tuesday, 23 Apr 1996 15:17:31 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0310 Dramaturg(e)s (3) From: Roger Gross Date: Tuesday, 23 Apr 1996 15:22:59 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0310 Dramaturg(e)s (4) From: Gavin H Witt Date: Tuesday, 23 Apr 96 23:17:57 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0310 Dramaturg(e)s (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: T. Fred Wharton Date: Tuesday, 23 Apr 96 15:49:08 EDT Subject: Dramaturg(e) While drama scholars use "dramaturge," from the French, meaning "writer of plays," producers and actors usuaully use "dramaturg" from the German, meaning "director or editor of plays" (Langenscheidt). I've most often heard theatre people using "dramaturg" to describe an adapter of a play-text. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Lloyd Neblett Date: Tuesday, 23 Apr 1996 15:17:31 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0310 Dramaturg(e)s RE:DRAMATURGS The term "dramaturg" in its contemporary sense is actually derived from the German theatre of Lessing's day. Pronounced with a hard "g" at the end. Only recently acquisitioned by the American theatre as a position of value in production staffs, it is not surprising that the American Heritage Dictionary has not updated its entry yet. Robert L. Neblett rlneblet@artsci.wustl.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Gross Date: Tuesday, 23 Apr 1996 15:22:59 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0310 Dramaturg(e)s Bill G. asks about dramaturgs. I'll be happy to answer because I are one. And I teach them. Those of us in the American sector of the dramaturg racket spell and pronounce it without the 'e' on the end. Because that is our habit, we are, of course, irritated when people spell or pronounce it 'dramaturge' and we wonder why they aren't literate. The real problem with the word is that we have no verb form. I can't bear to think that I am dramaturging. But I do it anyway. The 'urge' reappears, of course, when we say that we are experts in dramaturgy. We are inconsistent? Very well, we are inconsistent. The best thing in my life right now is that I am about to begin my annual three weeks of all-day, all-night dramaturging at the wonderful Mount Sequoyah New Play Retreat. Enjoy. Roger Gross U. of Arkansas (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gavin H Witt Date: Tuesday, 23 Apr 96 23:17:57 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0310 Dramaturg(e)s Regarding the "side issue" of dramaturg/e, a few comments. This has long been an issue of some contention, and has recently occasioned much discussion among the members of the Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the Americas. As witnessed by the title of the group, they rather strongly advocate the use of the e-less spelling, pronounced with a hard "g" as in "Pittsburgh" for the primary reason that this descends from the German version of the word and the role of the dramaturg--developed by Lessing and other Germans and only more recently introduced into the U.S.--rather than the French (dramaturge) which connotes more genericall a playwright. Literally the word derives from the Greek for "play-shaper" so both derivations are understandable. When discussing the role of one responsible for literary management, interpretive work, production research, working with a playwright, advising directors, or other myriad similar but ill-defined jobs, one is talking about a Dramaturg. Something more people should do. Thanks for asking--hope this helped clarify anything. Incidentally, LMDA has an informal listserv operated by a member. If anyone on this list would like that address, email me and I'd be happy to provide it. Gavin Witt Dramaturg, Court Theatre, Chicago ghwitt@midway.uchicago.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 10:28:17 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0314 Re: Subversion; Influence on Directors Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0314. Wednesday, 24 April 1996. (1) From: Joseph M Green Date: Tuesday, 23 Apr 1996 14:33:31 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0307 Re: Subverting (2) From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Wednesday, 24 Apr 1996 13:37:48 +1000 (EST) Subj: Re: Visual Interpretation (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Tuesday, 23 Apr 1996 14:33:31 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0307 Re: Subverting Thanks to Chris Stroffolino for his clarifications. I agree that Shakespeare makes fun of bad tragedy or even of the genre but I wouldn't conclude that any sort of "subversion" is going on (in the strong sense that I deduce) or that Shakespeare is saying that we are all actors who adopt "roles" and that this should imply a subversion of identity because identity is presented as a construct -- another representation. I'm not sure that, in fact, Chris implies that all this is so -- and I apologize for any misunderstanding. But it seems to me that "subversion" is the usual word to describe Shakespeare doing what we might expect him to do given who we are and when we are writing. The mechanicals' play is ridiculous just because it is mechanical. Romeo and Juliet are pathetic because they, at times, behave mechanically (or are the victims of Fate) and Friar Lawrence doesn't help by behaving as if he were someone writing a bad play and if Romeo had only known in time that Juliet was still alive... both plays present characters who act conventionally and mechanically and there are differences, of course, and in each play there is the implication that acting otherwise is possible for persons outside the play. What seems to be emphasized is this possibility: if tragedy isn't possible, then there is no such thing as a bad tragedy and if acting outside convention isn't possible, then there are no characters who can be seen as limited because they act conventionally. Whatever is subverted is subverted because there is something essentially better or truer or more real that is gestured towards. If this is what Chris means by Shakespeare "building" something, then I agree with him. But if the ultimate insight is taken to be the usual: that nothing exists aside from representation taken in the usual sense, then I can't agree. I also wonder whether tragedy can subvert comedy if comedy can subvert tragedy and it makes sense to me to think of comedy and tragedy as two genres creating different expectations and presenting different views of a reality that is not exhausted by either -- just as both modes are present or implied in a lot of Shakespeare's tragedies and comedies. I don't know which has the last word or whether asking that question helps. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Wednesday, 24 Apr 1996 13:37:48 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: Visual Interpretation In reply to Scott Crozier's interesting query about influence on directors by critical approaches, Mnouchkine's _ A Midsummer Night's Dream_ (first performed in February 1968, prior to the famous Brook production) was also heavily and explicitly influenced by Kott. There are many other examples, but one clear one is Jonathan Miller's more-or-less post-colonialist _Tempest_. I would like to suggest that many of the changing moods/fashions/emphases in theatre production are linked with developments in critical theory, philosophy etc. Artaud has had an enduring effect on theatre production (including Shakespeare) and many of the more unexpected features of many recent productions can be read in terms of various strands of post-structuralism. Feminist writing and thinking has had an impact on productions I have seen of _The Taming of the Shrew_, _Othello_, and many other plays. These are perhaps vaguer and looser examples than Scott is after, but I can think of many Australian productions (not usually mainstream) which have been influenced by specific critics and critical approaches, though few SHAKSPEReans will have seen them. Adrian Kiernmander Department of Theatre Studies University of New England ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 10:31:01 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0315 A Different Ending for *TGV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0315. Wednesday, 24 April 1996. From: Ellen Moody Date: Tuesday, 23 Apr 1996 15:58:40 -0400 Subject: A Different Ending for _Two Gentlemen of Verona_ A few weeks ago my husband and I attended a performance here in Washington by a local company in Arlington Virginia of _Two Gentlemen of Verona_ whose ending I have been mulling on ever since. At the close of the play we were "treated" to a mime scene in which two of the minor actors at the gestured behest of the Duke kill Proteus for his crimes. We see them violently kick and otherwise beat him up, then they throw him carelessly in a pool to drown. The girl who played Julia comes in, appears to grieve, but then walks sadly away as if so-to-speak the punishment was after all deserved and therefore inevitable. I was startled. It was not so much the grimness and superfluity of the violence--which the performance had used throughout, including a near-rape by Proteus of Sylvia. Nor was it the harshness of the "justice" imposedThe outfits of all the people were caricatures of various sexual stereotypes writ large. Sylvia was a tramp who looked like something the cat had rejected long ago in the 1950's; Thurio was a cowboy in rhinestones, with private parts outlined, and so it went. Nor in this atmosphere could the total lack of sympathy extended towards Proteus's fault (as all remember he's changeable, otherwise he'd have no fault as he opines) be surprizing. No what struck me was that the friendship between Valentine and Proteus was utterly de-emphasized. These scenes were hurried through and given no emphasis. All the emphasis was on Proteus's betrayal of Julia, but then the sexual appeal of Julia was denied. There was no sense of playfulness at all in her cross-dressing, nothing sexy so-to-speak. Julia was throughout dressed very severely, and when she donned a man's outfit, she looked positively funereal, very thin, no sign of anything sensual about her. She was in mourning. (Actually there was no much gaiety anywhere--the Duke was a South American dictator; we were in some awful vacationer's hotel throughout much of the action.) I wondered if the Elizabethan audience would have accepted Proteus's betrayal and forgiven him not simply because they were perhaps less puritanical than we have become today, and not simply because this performance appeared to keep in mind the politically correct stance towards what is rape, but because they didn't take the relationship between a man and woman as seriously as they did a man and man. In order to achieve the tone and perspective they wanted this group of actors had to de-emphasize Valentine and Proteus; Valentine was seen as attached to Sylvia. The betrayal of Valentine was passed over. Proteus became a cynosure of man's brutality to woman, and we were to hate him thoroughly. I was of course also astonished at the gratification we were expected to feel at this capital punishment in the hands of brutal vigilantes. Not to worry; the play's already finished, and unless the company revives the production next year it won't be done again. But it got rave reviews, and is I think sufficiently indicative of certain trends in our time and differences between it and the Elizabethan to warrant a description on this list. Ellen Moody ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:03:55 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0316 Ophelia's Pregnancy [Retreiving Past Discussions] Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0316. Thursday, 25 April 1996. From: Patricia Ann King Date: Wednesday, 24 Apr 1996 08:35:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Ophelia's Pregnancy [Retreiving Past Discussions] In our research we have come across references that indicate that Ophelia was pregnant, that the father could have been Hamlet or Claudius, that she committed suicide because of the pregnancy and that Gertrude asked Polonius to keep his daughter away from Hamlet because she feared pregnancy. What are the sources for this information? Cliff notes simply say this whole idea of pregnancy is unfounded and erroneous. Is it or isn't it? *************** [Editor's Note: In February, there was a very similar question -- did Hamlet and Ophelia have sexual relations? This question primed an on-going discussion regarding "character." John Drakakis and Terence Hawkes argued that we should not look at "characters" as if they were real persons: In SHK 7.0101, John Drakakis wrote, >I fail to understand the need to treat Ophelia as a real person. Whether she >is pregnant or not is about as irrelevant as whether Gertrude and Claudius had >a clandestine affair before the death of Old Hamlet, or whether Lady Macbeth >had any children (and how many). >The assumption is that when Ophelia speaks what is a disturbing series of >verses, that it is the autonomous consciousness Ophelia who is speaking, and >that she is referring to her own private history. I see no reason to believe >that she is. In SHK 7.0105, Terence Hawkes concluded, >The theory shared by a number of MY colleagues is that Hamlet and Ophelia had >textual relations. Others in the debate distinguished between textual and performative characters -- characters in texts and characters in performances. The issue even became a Forum at the recent Sixth World Shakespeare Congress in Los Angeles with Terence Hawkes as convenor and papers by William Dodd and Christy Desmet. To retreive this most recent round of discussion on character, send the following commands to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu GET LOG9502A SHAKSPER GET LOG9502B SHAKSPER GET LOG9502C SHAKSPER GET LOG9502D SHAKSPER GET LOG9502E SHAKSPER -- Hardy M. Cook Editor] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:16:24 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0317 Dramaturg(e)s; Mount Sequoyah; Funeral Practices Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0317. Thursday, 25 April 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 24 Apr 1996 17:39:50 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0313 Re: Dramaturg(e)s (2) From: Milla Riggio Date: Thursday, 25 Apr 1996 13:27:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0313 Re: Dramaturg(e)s (3) From: Christine R. Gray Date: Wednesday, 24 Apr 1996 21:17:45 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0312 Re: Texts (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 24 Apr 1996 17:39:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0313 Re: Dramaturg(e)s Thank you much for the information on dramaturgs (German) and dramaturges (French). You all should send this information to the American Heritage lexicographers. I am duly enlightened and will not longer fight with Michael Burnham about urgs and urges. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Thursday, 25 Apr 1996 13:27:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0313 Re: Dramaturg(e)s Roger Gross: Can you tell those of us who might be interested when your Mount Sequoyah plays will be produced this year? Milla Riggio (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine R. Gray Date: Wednesday, 24 Apr 1996 21:17:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0312 Re: Texts Does anyone on the list know of a source for information on graveyards and funeral practices that would help me and my students understand V.i. of Hamlet? Were the graves shallow? Were corpses put in caskets? Why are there skulls lying about? Inquiring minds want to know. thank you, christine gray ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:22:13 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0318 Re: Texts; Funeral Elegy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0318. Thursday, 25 April 1996. (1) From: David M Richman Date: Wednesday, 24 Apr 1996 12:14:41 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0304 Re: Texts (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 24 Apr 1996 08:08:30 -0700 Subj: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Wednesday, 24 Apr 1996 12:14:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0304 Re: Texts This is a contribution to the "texts" thread. Ever since I acquired the Oxford Text Archive Shakespeare collection, I have been basing scripts for our Shakespeare productions at the University of New Hampshire on those texts, which reproduce in electronic format the Quartos and Folio. When time permits (it does not always permit) I bring alternate readings from Q or F texts to the actors working on production. At present, I have a touring *Romeo and Juliet* that requires a running time of ninety minutes. The script from which I started was the 1597 Quarto. I kept all the text's cuts, except for the "gallop apace" speech, which I restored from the Folio text. After a few days of getting used to, the student performers were not hurt, and were indeed helped, by old spelling. Rhetorical punctation was especially helpful. "And none but fooles doe weare it, cast it off. She speakees but she sayes nothing. What of that?" We ignore the silent final E's, as in "doe" which we pronoun e as if it were spelled "do". We don't pause after "speakes" but rather after "nothing." This is a small example. I give the highest recommendation to Oxford Text Archive as a basis for production scripts. By the way, we used the 1597Q version of the scene between Romeo, Juliet, and the Friar, which features the wonderful stage direction: Enter Juliet somewhat fast, and and embraceth Romeo. David Richman University of New Hampshire (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 24 Apr 1996 08:08:30 -0700 Subject: Funeral Elegy Brian Vickers (Centre for Renaissance Studies, Zurich) wrote a long letter to the New York Times defending Shakespeare against the Funeral Elegy (TLS April 12). Vickers finds a likeness between W.S. and Simon Wastell, who wrote an elegy called "The Muses Thankfulness", 1627. My notion is that John Ford wrote the "Funeral Elegy" six years after writing "Time's Memorial", 1606, and we both give our reasons for thinking these choices are better than believing that Shakespeare wrote it. Shaxicon has compared neither of these poems with the Funeral Elegy. It examined elegies only between the years 1610-1613. So it seems to be two to one against Don Foster and Richard Abrams, insofar as investigation of evidence goes. Vickers and myself don't believe Shakespeare wrote the FE, and we have read Shakespeare and presented alternative poets. Shaxicon is ignorant of both these poets. We would hope that some other obscure elegies might be brought to light to compare with the Funeral Elegy. Someone wrote it, after all, and if Vickers and myself are mistaken in our choices, continued searching is sure to find out the author. I would suggest that Foster-Abrams extend their search; 4 years is a database that is nearly insignificant, a very small window to look through. Therefore welcome to the quest. If some sensible scholars with an ear for poetry (this seems to be the dividing line) can uncover some other possible writers of the Elegy, let them speak out. Foster-Abrams may be pressed to look about a bit more, and open up that database. Shaxicon is in a tight corner and not much light is coming through the window. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:24:48 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0319 Re: LOOSE ENDS Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0319. Thursday, 25 April 1996. From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 25 Apr 1996 10:02:19 -0400 Subject: LOOSE ENDS Hamlet's unexplained escape from his appointed doom in England remains a conspicuous disappointment in Q1, not adequately accounted for by YS Bains in LOOSE ENDS (on the SHAKSPER fileserver). Bains' assertions might gain some strength if he could produce a parallel example, in Shakespeare or anyone else, where the hero, sent to his demise, returns unharmed promising an explanation he never delivers. "Being 'set ashore'," Bains insists, "is as satisfactory a device as any other," but are we satisfied? When the protagonist is scheduled to die offstage and doesn't, naturally we want to know why not. Not to tell us is hardly consistent with the narrative habits of Shakespeare, ordinarily a very thorough expositionist. As for "Hamlet would have related these circumstances, but he never got the chance," this argument suffers badly when in Q2 the very same extenuating contingencies (Ophelia's funeral and the duel with Laertes) fail to stop Hamlet from telling the whole story. Since the details of the escape were available in Shakespeare's sources, why would he leave them out of even an early version of his play? Bains' answer -- that the deaths of Hamlet and his mother are made richer in pathos if Gertrude dies not knowing how her son evaded villany in England -- besides resting on dubious pathos-logic, misses the point: it's not Gertrude who needs the explanation, it's us. But this is in fact a side issue. Bains is defending the narrative integrity of Q1, but that doesn't refute the memorial hypothesis, which assumes actors reconstructed scripts *in order to act them*: general dramatic viability in such a text should not surprise us. The real evidence for memory decay is more closely textual: word substitutions and paraphrases with enfeeblement and sometimes loss of sense, homonym confusions, right words in wrong places, and one or two roles remembered better than others. Examples of these in Q1 are considered in persuasive detail by Harold Jenkins in his introduction (Arden 18-36). Bains' fight should not be with Hibbard but with Jenkins and the works cited by him, principally Duthrie's "The 'Bad' Quarto of Hamlet". ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:52:29 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0320 SHAKSPER Advisory Board Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0320. Friday, 26 April 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, April 26, 1996 Subject: SHAKSPER Advisory Board I have been slow in making any changes in the manner in which SHAKSPER operates, but circumstances are such that I now feel a change is in order. I have encouraged diversity and inclusiveness; nevertheless, SHAKSPER was founded as an "academic" conference and I still view it as such. Our current membership of 1250 includes many Shakespearean textual scholars and bibliographers, editors and critics, but it also includes professors and high school teachers, undergraduate and graduate students, actors, poets, playwrights, theatre professionals, librarians, computer scientists, and interested bystanders. The variety of SHAKSPEReans has led to wide-ranging discussion, but many have lamented the recent infrequency of the engaging scholarly exchange that SHAKSPER was intended to cultivate. I want SHAKSPER principally to be a forum for serious academic discussion (especially since electronic alternatives exist) and to that end I intend to establish a SHAKSPER Advisory Board. This board will be composed of from four to six Shakespearean scholars from within its membership. The purpose of the SHAKSPER Advisory Board will be to advise the editor 1) On matters of policy affecting the entire conference, 2) On resolving complaints, and 3) On determining the appropriateness of certain posting. A LISTSERV discussion group of its nature is different from a journal (electronic or traditional) and peer-reviewed posting is not possible or desirable; however, I do need advice from peers regarding issues that affect the conference and particular posting that are questionable. I will consider all responses to this posting as personal mail to me, and I will entertain suggestions for members of the Advisory Board. I will be going away for the weekend and NOT taking a computer with me. I hope to start making invitations for membership on the Advisory Board by the middle of next week.========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 11:22:03 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0321 Re: Texts; Mount Sequoyah; Funeral Practices; Loose Ends Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0321. Tuesday, 30 April 1996. (1) From: Andrew Murphy Date: Thursday, 25 Apr 1996 18:12:05 +0100 (BST) Subj: Texts (2) From: Roger Gross Date: Friday, 26 Apr 1996 16:15:24 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0317 Mount Sequoyah (3) From: David Evett Date: Sunday, 28 April 1996 1:12pm ET Subj: SHK 7.0317 Funeral Practices (4) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 26 Apr 1996 07:33:21 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0319 Re: LOOSE ENDS (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Murphy Date: Thursday, 25 Apr 1996 18:12:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: Texts Though I cannot speak for the general editors of the Shakespearean Originals, as a contributor to the series I feel I must take respectful exception to Gabriel Egan's recent passing reference to the series' fetishization of the quartos. In fact, the series is _not_ limited to editions of quarto texts, but includes editions of F1 texts as well. The aim of the series is to provide affordable, lightly edited texts of the first printed textualisations of plays from the Shakespeare canon. Surely this is a modest and unexceptional aim, in the light of almost four centuries of the valorisation (fetishization, perhaps?) of heavily edited/conflated texts. Andrew Murphy (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Gross Date: Friday, 26 Apr 1996 16:15:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0317 Mount Sequoyah Because Milla Riggio asks, I'll tell you a bit about the Mount Sequoyah New Play Retreat. Each year I select six writers from a pool of over two hundred applicants from all over the world. These are what we call "the best of the emerging professional playwrights." They come to Fayetteville, AR, to an idyllic haven known as the Mount Sequoyah Retreat Center. There, with myself and Kent Brown as dramaturg/directors and a professional company of 14 actors, we work all day and all night on the works-in-progress these writers brought with them. We have been fortunate in attracting very talented and very interesting writers. I always pick a diverse group of six and the interaction of these writers is a wonder to behold. They feed each other. The writers are always extraordinarily productive here. It's impossible not to write in this atmosphere where everything is designed to serve the writer. On the last three days (June 6, 7, and 8 this year), we go downtown to a great theatre complex called the Walton Arts Center (thank you Walmart) and we offer script-in-hand stagings of the six plays, two world premieres each night with talkbacks from the audience afterward. It's three weeks of heaven. Thanks for asking. Roger Gross U. of Arkansas Director, Mt. Sequoyah New Play Retreat (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Sunday, 28 April 1996 1:12pm ET Subject: SHK 7.0317 Funeral Practices Early modern English graves were shallow or deep depending on circumstances. Because ground adjacent to the church was always limited in extent, graveyards tended to fill up; in order to make efficient use of the available ground bodies were put on top of other bodies, and bodies buried long enough in the past that their identity had been lost were often exhumed and the bones put in a special structure called a charnel house. Bodies were wrapped in a linen cloth, the shroud, and then placed in wooden coffins unless they were of great wealth and/or status, when a metal casket might be used; they were not embalmed, and the funeral normally took place within a day or two of death, though occasionally there was a delay, as in the case of Sir Philip Sidney, whose friends wanted to give him a really splendid funeral but required some weeks to raise the necessary funds. Important people were often buried not in the churchyard, of course, but inside the church, either under the floor or in tombs along the walls and aisles. For information of funeral customs in Europe generally there are several books by the French historian Philippe Aries that investigate various elements of the subject. Funereally, David Evett (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 26 Apr 1996 07:33:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0319 Re: LOOSE ENDS Regarding the lack of explanation for Hamlet's survival and numerous other loose ends in many of the plays: I believe that Shakespeare's best plays were revised a number of times over the years, such loose ends being one of the dangers that threaten the writer when revising. I also believe that the so-called memory versions are in most cases probably revisions for travelling companies or early and less polished versions. I think any of these explanations might serve for a given version, and that there is no one explanation that covers all of them. I realize that the sacrosanct chronology forced on commentators by Shakespeare of Stratford's biography will not allow for early versions, one more reason for a fresh and openminded examination by professionals of the authorship question. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 11:42:33 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0322 Calls for Papers; ACTER Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0322. Tuesday, 30 April 1996. (1) From: Luke A. Wilson Date: Friday, 26 Apr 1996 14:03:22 -0400 (EDT) Subj: CALL FOR PAPERS (2) From: Megan Lloyd Date: Friday, 26 Apr 1996 16:33:27 +500 Subj: Shakespeare at Kalamazoo, Call for Papers 1997 (3) From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Friday, 26 Apr 1996 06:32:42 -0400 (EDT) Subj: ACTER openings 1996-97 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Luke A. Wilson Date: Friday, 26 Apr 1996 14:03:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS CALL FOR PAPERS TEXTUAL PRACTICE AND THEATRICAL LABOR: SHAKESPEARE AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES 1997 Ohio Shakespeare Conference Department of English Ohio State University Columbus OH May 16-18, 1997 Featured Speakers: Stephen Orgel (Stanford University) Leah Marcus (University of Texas, Austin) Jeff Masten (Harvard University) Douglas Bruster (University of Texas, San Antonio) The 1997 Ohio Shakespeare Conference invites paper and session proposals on any aspect of the business of the theater in Shakespeare's lifetime, from reexaminations of textual and editing problems, to the material and economic conditions within which dramatic scripts, texts and performances were produced and consumed in the many transactions that occured among the interested parties: consumer, player, patron, printing house, playhouse, playwright. The conference seeks new research on, and new conceptualizations of, some of the oldest critical and historical questions concerning early modern theater: What economic, ideological, and phenomenological structures shaped and were shaped by the performance of dramatic and theatrical work? How do such structures affect textual and theatrical production and reproduction? What bearing do such concerns have on questions of topicality, influence, didacticism, patronage, or the evolution of dramatic tastes and genres? While Shakespeare will undoubtedly figure prominently, the conference aims at somewhat broader coverage. Work on Shakespeare's contemporaries in the theater, therefore, as well on Shakespeare's collaborative work, is encouraged. Suitable panel and paper topics include, but are not limited to: ** acting as labor * "playhouse interpolations" and the production of meaning * textual variants and the economics of revision * sites and scenes of dramatic composition * collaborative authorship * acting as action * text v. work * work v. labor * work and play * script as work product * the cultural work of the theater * performance as artifact * employment contracts * entrepreneurship * contractual and theatrical performances * promises * wagers * joint stock companies and corporate personality * professional competence and incompetence * expertise and training * divisions of labor in theatrical practice, and in dramatic representation * material phenomenologies of the theater * represented time and the time it takes to represent it * acting, identity and alienation * consumption (e.g., playgoing) as work * dramatic representations of economic relationships * pirates and "dramatic piracy" * acting and ownership * censorship and economics * economics and/of influence ** For more information, or to submit abstracts for 20-minute presentations, or proposals for sessions (deadline: December 20, 1996), contact: Luke Wilson or Chris Highley Department of English Ohio State University 164 W. 17th Ave Columbus OH 43210-1370 voice: 614-292-6065 fax: 614-292-7816 email: Wilson.501@osu.edu; Highley.1@osu.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Megan Lloyd Date: Friday, 26 Apr 1996 16:33:27 +500 Subject: Shakespeare at Kalamazoo, Call for Papers 1997 SHAKESPEARE AT KALAMAZOO Thirty-second International Congress on Medieval Studies Kalamazoo, Michigan PROPOSED sessions for the Thirty-second Congress in 1997 are subject to approval by The Medieval Institute, Western Michigan University. SHAKESPEARE AT KALAMAZOO has organized programs at the International Congress since 1989. Session 1. Domesticity and the Unruly Woman: Marriage and Gender Issues in Shakespeare This panel session invites scholars from a variety of disciplines to discuss gender issues in the late medieval and early modern periods. Panelists will focus their discussion on how the diverse voices of Shakespeare's women, particularly the disruptive or otherwise "unruly" women, reflect, undermine, or transcend gender, class, and societal expectations and convey a feminist ideology that developed over the late medieval and early modern periods. Topics for this panel may include the family circle, domestic relations, class structure, marriage, kinships, domestic settings, and service. To enable greater participation in this session, panel presentations should be no longer than 10 minutes. Session 2. Mapping Shakespeare This session provides an interdisciplinary forum in which to explore aspects of social and political geography as well as various geographical places Shakespeare mentions in his works. Papers might discuss travel, maps, cityscapes, locales, the pastoral, the social landscape, among other topics that address a Renaissance sense of place emerging from the Medieval world view. This session invites scholars in all disciplines including art, history, music, folklore, and philosophy as well as literature. The Congress on Medieval Studies provides a unique milieu for an exchange of insights on Shakespeare's place in the continuum of culture. The following rules corresponding to those established by the Board of the Medieval Institute should be strictly adhered to if you intend to submit an abstract: 1. All Abstracts must include the following information at the top of the front page: title of paper; name of author; complete mailing address, including e-mail and fax if available; institutional affiliation, if any, of the author; confirmation of the 10- minute or 20-minute reading time length; statement of need (or no need) for audio-visual equipment. 2. Abstracts or papers must be typed, double-spaced, not more than 300 words long, and must clearly indicate the papers's thesis, methodology, and conclusions. Accepted abstracts will be submitted for publication to the Shakespeare Newsletter or other periodical. Publication of abstracts does not preclude publication of complete papers. 3. THREE HARD COPIES OF ABSTRACTS or, PREFERABLY, COMPLETED PAPERS MUST BE SUBMITTED BY SEPTEMBER 1. Abstracts or papers submitted after the deadline cannot be considered. Three members of the governing board of SHAKESPEARE AT KALAMAZOO will select the papers. E-mail submission is encouraged to facilitate transmission among the selection panel. 4. Submission of an abstract or papers will be considered agreement by the author to attend the Congress if the paper is accepted. 5. It is understood that papers submitted will be essentially new and have not been presented in public before. 6. Graduate students who wish to submit an abstract should consult their advisors about the suitability of their work and the regulations (if any) of their university. 7. Papers submitted may not require more than 10 MINUTES OF READING TIME for Session 1 or 20 MINUTES OF READING TIME for Session 2, including slides, films, or other audio-video support. Session leaders will hold papers strictly to this limit to facilitate discussion. 8. In order to allow as many scholars to participate in the program as possible, ONE ABSTRACT ONLY should be submitted to the Thirty-second Congress. Send inquiries, abstracts, and papers to Megan Lloyd, Department of English, University of Rio Grande, Rio Grande, Ohio 45674. Phone: (614) 245-7419 / Fax: 614-245-7432 / E-mail: mlloyd@urgrgcc.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Friday, 26 Apr 1996 06:32:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ACTER openings 1996-97 ACTER has an opening Oct. 7-13, 1996 for a residency of *Much Ado About Nothing*. I am particularly interested in any schools in the area of Arkansas to Texas and could make a discount for this week. ACTER also has openings Feb. 17-23 and March 3-9, 1997 for *Romeo and Juliet* - please contact us if you are interested. Cynthia Dessen, Gen. Manager, csdessen@email.unc.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 12:06:38 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0323 Re: Funeral Elegy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0323. Tuesday, 30 April 1996. (1) From: Jim Helfers Date: Thursday, 25 Apr 1996 13:28:26 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0301 Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 25 Apr 1996 20:52:02 -0500 (EST) Subj: As in FE (3) From: Peter L. Groves Date: Friday, 26 Apr 1996 15:01:56 GMT+1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0318 Re: Funeral Elegy (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 27 Apr 1996 22:00:08 -0500 (EST) Subj: Harry Hill reading FE: A Soliloquy (5) From: Charles Boyle Date: Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 11:21:05 -0500 (EST) Subj: elegy (6) From: Richard Kennedy Date: Thursday, 25 Apr 1996 20:30:23 -0700 Subj: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Helfers Date: Thursday, 25 Apr 1996 13:28:26 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0301 Re: Funeral Elegy RE: Funeral Elegy Sorry for the belated answer to Richard Kennedy's post of April 19th (SHAKSPER 7.0301, 21 April). Having had my name taken in vain, so to speak, I was struck with the irony of Mr. Kennedy's comments, since Donald Foster and David Kathman had initially pointed out the work of the Shakespeare Clinic to me. I sense wheels within wheels in the Kennedy/Foster exchanges, so, with some trepidation I enter this contested arena with some small scraps. First, I believe that Elliott's program and SHAXICON really do very different things. The Shakespeare Clinic program concentrates on what I (perhaps idio- syncratically) think of as "classical stylometry," the measurement of regular- ly occurring stylistic features common to all writers. As far as the Clinic's conclusions about the Funeral Elegy are concerned, they strike me as ambig- uous. Their tests essentially specify a statistical range within an author's style. If stylistic markers in a tested sample fall outside the range of a particular author, then the presumption is an alternate authorship. Foster's post on the tests and methods of the Clinic was, it seems to me, clear. He questioned the validity of applying some of the stylistic tests; with the questioned tests omitted, the FE falls statistically into the range of Shakespeare's samples. SHAXICON works in a different way. Admittedly, the conclusions to be drawn from manipulating this database rest on some assumptions: the main one is that the person who wrote the plays also acted some parts in them (or at least knew these parts better than the others, for whatever reason); another may be that the Shakespeare who is listed as a sharer and player in the company is the one who wrote the plays. Even if those assumptions are not granted, there's still the question of the statistically significant patterns of rare words revealed by the data. Notice that this is an entirely different tack from classical stylometry, which surveys universal stylistic aspects instead of rare words. On a further stylometric note: on April 4 of this year, I heard a lecture by Jonathan Hope of Middlesex University, entitled "'New' Works by Shakespeare? Non-Lunatic Approaches to Authorship." Initially, I was skeptical of his use of traditional statistics, but I soon found that he has an interesting spin on stylometry; he combines it with assumptions about patterns of historical linguistic change to pick his contrastive pairs of syntactic items. His sociolinguistic approach charts changes in syntactic usages. It so happens that a number of syntactic markers were undergoing rapid and significant changes during the period of Shakespeare's career. Such items as the use of forms of the word "do" as an auxiliary, along with other items (doth vs. does, Hath vs. has, ye vs. you) can be measured and charted on graphs of historical language change. Someone educated at a particular time would have the syntactic habits peculiar to his generation. (I'm not doing his analysis justice for several reasons: first, my notes on the talk are a bit sparse after three weeks; second, he's publishing on this soon, and I promised not to let out too much information). To be brief -- Hope tested Shakespeare's use of auxiliary "do" in his plays and verse, then checked the FE. The pattern of auxiliary "do" usage in FE falls within Shakespeare's range. Look for (I believe) an article-length publication from him soon on this. He has already written _The Authorship of Shakespeare's Plays: A Socio- Linguistic Study_. Cambridge U., 1994. Anyway, enough. It's back to some feverish finals-week grading. --Jim Helfers Grand Canyon University Phoenix, AZ (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 25 Apr 1996 20:52:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: As in FE Sometime ago Don Foster suggested that anyone who doubted Shakespeare's authorship of FE should look at W.S.'s use of "as." As far as I can remember, no one commented on that challenge on SHAKSPER. Well, I thought I'd poke around and see what I could find in my spare time. Acording to my count, FE the poem has 4577 words, 47 of which are ases. That's a relative frequency of 10.26 ases per thousand words. *The Tempest* has according to the Oxford *Textual Companion* 12,812 words and 109 ases, or a relative frequency 8.50 ases per thousand words. *Cymbeline* has 22,878 words and 257 ases, or a relative frequency of 11.23 ases per thousand words. The Sonnets contain 17, 520 words and 120 ases, or a relative frequency of 6.84 ases per thousand words. Marvin Spevack in *The Harvard Concordance to Shakespeare* records a relative frequency of 6.88 ases per thousand words for the whole canon. (I counted the "ases" at several websites.) However, in terms of frequency, 10.26 seems a trifle high, but, taking *Cymbeline* into account, I don't think it's extraordinarily out of line. So I gather that Don was not talking about the relative frequency of ases in FE. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L. Groves Date: Friday, 26 Apr 1996 15:01:56 GMT+1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0318 Re: Funeral Elegy Richard Kennedy writes of the Funeral Elegy: > If some sensible scholars with an ear for poetry > (this seems to be the dividing line) can uncover some other possible > writers of the Elegy, let them speak out. Yes: this really *does* seem to be the dividing line, and it suggests a connection between the Elegy discussion and the current controversy about the quality and provenance of the Bad Quarto of *Hamlet*. I suspect that a reader who is happy to attribute the tedious flatulence of the *Elegy* to Shakespeare might indeed not baulk at ascribing to him stuff like the following: To be, or not to be, I there's the point. To Die, to sleepe, is that all? I all: No, to sleepe, to dreame, I mary there it goes, For in that dreame of death, when wee awake, And borne before an euerlasting Iudge, From whence no passenger euer retur'nd, The vndiscouered country, at whose sight The happy smile, and the accursed damn'd. But for this, the ioyfull hope of this, Whol'd beare the scornes and flattery of the world, Scorned by the right rich, the rich curssed of the poore? (Q1 815-25) O imperious death! How many Princes Has thou at one draft bloudily shot to death? (Q1 2125-26) Content your selues, Ile shew to all, the ground, The first beginning of this Tragedy: Let there a scaffold be rearde vp in the market place, And let the State of the world be there: Where you shall heare such a sad story tolde, That neuer mortall man could more vnfolde. (Q1 2130-35) Presumably it is no co-incidence that these improbable ascriptions have become academically respectable at a time when the very idea of specifically *literary* value--the notion, for example, that in some objective sense 'Lycidas' is a better poem than FE--is widely regarded as a kind of ideological swindle, a covert attempt to foist bourgeois humanist values onto unsuspecting students. If all texts are now democratically equal, then there is indeed no reason why Shakespeare should not be held responsible for FE *and* the 1603 *Hamlet*, but as the Duke of Wellington said to a stranger who accosted him with "Mr Jones, I believe": "If you believe that, you'll believe anything". Peter Groves, Department of English, Monash University, (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 27 Apr 1996 22:00:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Harry Hill reading FE: A Soliloquy Yesterday I got the tape of Harry Hill reading *The Funeral Elegy*, and I am happily impressed. Harry does an excellent interpretation. I followed the text as he read, and it occurred to me that perhaps the poem is meant to be performed. Read as a dramatic meditation on death, the Elegy gains in power and meaning. Harry treats the poem as a kind of long soliloquy, moving from public to private voice. I was quite taken by the dramatic qualities of the poem as read by Harry, and if Shakespeare did write this poem, we might expect it to have dramatic qualities that are essential unrealized in the study. (I am, of course, not putting this comment forward as an argument for attributing the poem to Shakespeare.) In any case, I strongly recommend Harry Hill's reading. And after listening to it, I have a new respect for the Elegy. Yours, Bill (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Boyle Date: Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 11:21:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: elegy The Funeral Elegy has invited discussion on the still vexed issue of authorship and that's always a healthy sign. In regard to the current problem, I find parts of the Elegy that actually flow like good writing. And the fact that the initials W.S. are attached to it may prove significant. An earlier post touched on the same thing I had noticed after reading it. There seem to be two voices. Sections, particularly towards the middle, read much better than, for instance, the turgid opening. Still I can't help finding the attempt to ascribe this verse, in its totality, to the author who was already capable of writing the Sonnets, odd in its insistence. So much work is still to be done. Has anyone yet compared this elegy with The Phoenix and Turtle? How is the vast difference between the two to be reconciled? How could the mature Shakespeare pass over the Elegy lines, even as an editor, without correction? It's too far a fall. Consider, however, that Thomas Thorpe published Shake-speares Sonnets (why can't he ever get the name right?) - and again apparently without the author's participation. Then the theoretical possibility that parts of this elegy might represent the work of a very young Shakespeare, other parts added by a second hand - John Ford? - for this occasion, becomes at least plausible. We have seen two hands before in Shakespeare. Perhaps Don Foster is on to something. Has Shaxicon examined the other published writings of W.S.? The letters of William Stanley? And when will it visit our old friend Edward De Vere? There are lines in the Funeral Elegy almost as good as his early poetry. Curiously, Charles Boyle (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Kennedy Date: Thursday, 25 Apr 1996 20:30:23 -0700 Subject: Funeral Elegy The Funeral Elegy isn't such a bad poem, as elegies go. I am getting over my first shock that it might be included with Shakespeare's works, and can look at it less passionately now. It's faults are the faults of youth, the sincerity and righteousness, the gathering of philosophy from books, and the cliches, simply show a young man learning his trade. He has not yet learned to frame his mind with words, but he shows promise. He has a flair, and courage, and like a brave subaltern ventures out on sentences from which he has little hope of returning from the lines unscarred. But that's youth, and he's all right. I guess you could say his heart is in the right place. What else might be known of W.S. is not a lot.. He was evidently a friend of William Peter. He was young (147-148), and of independent means (230-231), and he wrote "in disguise" (208), and had himself suffered slander. Much more can't be known. What can possibly be known of William Peter goes to this list: He evidently had degrees from both Oxford and Cambridge (301-302), and might have been a Catholic (320). He had a private fortune (305-308), and his father was dead (68). He was a "youth" (197) and a gentleman (430), and died where he was born (131). He was a writer (238), and you might suppose that he was famous (200-203; 227, 243, 429-430), but suffered scandal and malice in his days (much of this). Some of these items above might be debateable. Those who have read the Funeral Elegy will want to correct me, and I will be glad to know more of W.S. and William Peter insofar as we can puzzle some information out of the poem. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 12:20:37 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0324 Larry King; Manfred Mickleson Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0324. Tuesday, 30 April 1996. (1) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 26 Apr 1996 11:52:55 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0289 Questions (2) From: Leo Daugherty Date: Saturday, 27 Apr 1996 11:31:54 GMT Subj: Manfred Mickleson, FYI (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 26 Apr 1996 11:52:55 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0289 Questions For Eileen Flanagan: Who's Larry King? T. Hawkes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leo Daugherty Date: Saturday, 27 Apr 1996 11:31:54 GMT Subject: Manfred Mickleson, FYI Dear SHAKSPEReans: In what follows you will be introduced to Manfred Mickleson. The fact that he is a bit outside our period need not, as I am sure you will agree after reading his letter, disqualify him for serious consideration as chairperson of the SHAKSPER Advisory Board which Hardy is now proposing. It will also, I trust, not constitute a serious obstacle to his candidacy that his ontological status is not totalizingly unproblematic. Leo Daugherty The Evergreen State College ******************************************************************************* > Manfred Mickleson Applies for an 18th-Century Job > The Association of Literary Scholars and Critics > > >We have had numerous requests for an authentic copy of the famous letter >sent by Manfred Mickleson when seeking an appointment in 18th-century >literature. > >What makes Manfred amazing is that he is an imaginary candidate. He was >created in a moment of sheer giddiness by several members of a search >committee who had, collectively, just finished reading the dossiers of >over one hundred candidates for an actual 18th-century position. Manfred >is, therefore, more than a product of the ironic or satirical >imagination. He is a kind of "composite candidate" representing the newest >PhD's being produced by English graduate programs. > >The other thing that makes Manfred amazing is that a number of the >departments to whom he applied did not realize that he was an imaginary >candidate. He received over forty dossier requests, and six invitations >to be interviewed at the MLA convention. (We still have not learned >whether or not, despite being unable to show up in person for his MLA >interviews, Manfred received any actual offers.) > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > >Dear Professor xxxxxxx: > > I am writing to apply for the position in Eighteenth-Century literature >announced in the October MLA Job List. After having taken an M.A. at Cornell. >University, I am in the process of completing my dissertation -- >"Commerce, Homosociality, and the Engendering of the Body in Defoe and >Wollstonecraft" -- under the direction of Terry Castle at Stanford >University. This year, I am a visiting assistant professor of >eighteenth-century literature at Wagenknecht University. I expect to >defend my dissertation in March. The manuscript is under contract to >Routledge. As my vita shows, I have given over forty papers at various >conferences on literature and cultural studies in the last three years, >and have articles under consideration at twelve scholarly >journals. (A portion of the first chapter, "The 'Eeek' of Literary >Sentimentalism: Does Eco Echo Eco?" will be published in PMLA this coming >spring. I also have several other book-length projects under contract to >Verso, Methuen, and Cambridge University Press. > > The argument of my dissertation, informed by current thinking in feminist >theory, queer theory, cultural materialism, eco-criticism, and postcolonial >studies, centers on the paradoxes of representation involving masculine >authority and feminine desire in eighteenth-century pirate literature, and >especially on sentimentalism as a response to the en(gender)ing of the >patriarchal body -- which I see as epistemologically equivalent to the "body >politic" in eighteenth-century political discourse -- in the figure of >the (male) sailor in British oceanic commerce during the first age of imperial >expansion. I argue that it is the absence of women from shipboard life >that permits Defoe, in his History of the Pirates, to depict seagoing >commerce terms of a normative homosociality -- the all-male society of the >quarterdeck and lower decks in both naval and commercial shipping -- such that >piracy then embodies the eruption of a transgressive (and, implicitly, >anti-imperialistic) sexuality demanding representation in altered or >displaced terms in the "literature of the shore," including such genres as >the periodical >essay, the mock-heroic poem, and the sentimental novel. It is in the >sentimental >novel, I argue, that this displacement achieves autonomous status as itself a >normative discourse, with a representation of emotions in terms of a "feminine" >sensitivity operating to compensate for the violated fantasy of all-male >sufficiency represented by the boarding or "penetration" of an East >India galley or naval three-decker by a depredatory piracy. > > Since the background of such scenes is the emergent society of >Anglo-Caribbean commerce -- slavery is a leitmotif in many of the pirate >narrative popular in Defoe's period -- I also see a proleptic >postcolonialism at work in the system of paradoxes evident in the attempt >to recuperate African-Americans -- then, of course, not yet Americans, as >"America" would not emerge as a cultural and political construction for a >number of years -- as normatively transgressive figures in the portrayal >both of Afro-Caribbean slave culture and as members of pirate crews. > > My most controversial point, I think, concerns the way literary >sentimentalism -- I have in mind not only such major writers as Charlotte >Lennox and Mrs. Inchbald, but such male writers as Henry Mackenzie and >Laurence Sterne >-- operates as a compensatory mechanism for the "violated" homosociality of >the shipboard crew assaulted by pirates. Far from representing an empowering >domesticity, as Nancy Armstrong and other leading eighteenth-century >scholars have argued, literary sentimentalism demands to be viewed as the >representational equivalent of "the lower deck in drag," striving >through a reassertion of "feminine" sensitivity to reassert the >equilibrium of an "onshore" heteroxexuality symbolically and practically >suspended when >the ship leaves shore with an all-male crew. > > The entire point of literary sentimentalism, from this perspective, is >to insulate the world of normative homosociality from the otherwise >disturbing effects of masculine desire represented by the pirate society that >boards the "normal" vessel with its cutlasses in its teeth, which on a higher >symbolic plane operates to protect the British military and the forces of >commercialism from destabilization or disruption. > > In this sense, works like Sterne's A Sentimental Journey were not only >complicit with, but actively agential in the development of, British >imperialism in the period following the Seven Years' War. By protecting the >material sentimentalism -- especially in the ideologically problematic >context of Afro-Caribbean cultural development, with the slave figuring as >neither "masculine" or "feminine" but as an always-potentially-disruptive >'Other' -- literature was simultaneously insulating the "body politic" of >the new post-Hanoverian commercial order from potentially dangerous forms >of accidental or unintended demystification. > > The description of my dissertation as I have given it covers only part >of its first chapter. The manuscript will culminate in a detailed discussion of >Mary Wollstonecraft's Pirates of Penzance as a feminist reappropriation of >the piracy motif, together with an account of the masculinist or patriarchal >suppression that would for many years result in this work's being >attributed to Gilbert and Sullivan -- and does not mention the use made in >subsequent portions of work by Foucault, Althusser, Lacan, Deleuze, Bourdieu, >Gayatri Spivak, Edward Said, Judith Butler, and others. To grasp its full >range, >one would have to see a sample from the actual dissertation, which I would be >very happy to send you. > > I would also be very happy to send you a copy of my curriculum vitae, >which contains full titles of my conference papers and articles under >submission, plus a dossier containing letters from Terry Castle, John Bender, >Jonathan Culler, Laura Brown, Felicity Nussbaum, Jonathan Arac, and Peter de >Bolla. > > I may perhaps add, without seeming too boastful, that in the short time >I have been teaching here at Wagenknecht University, I have won several Most >Exciting Teacher awards, including, most recently, a citation for my >creative use of eighteenth-century maps and engineering sketches in my >class on "Jolly >Roger on the Turnpike," a freshman seminar on the development of the English >road system and response to the figure of the pirate-turned-highwayman in >eighteenth-century criminal trials. (Basically, I argue that the figure >of the former pirate must be viewed in terms of a transgressive sexuality >absent from depictions of the shore-based highwayman who, having begun his >career on a horse and ended it in a halter, is able to function as an >unproblematic ideological support for a depredatory imperialist commerce >during the period of the East India monopoly. Several undergraduates have >told me that >this course changed their lives.) > > I will be attending the MLA convention in December, and would be >delighted to talk further with you there. > > Sincerely, > > Manfred J. Mickleson > > Visiting Assistant Professor > >--------------------------------------------- > >This page is not copyright, on the grounds that (1) our own copy came to >us on the 18th-century zamisdat, so we have no idea who has the rights, >and (2) Manfred in any case belongs not to an age but to all humankind. >Feel free to download, print, and circulate. > >Amy L. Cavender >Dept. of Government and International Studies >University of Notre Dame >Notre Dame, IN 46556 >Internet: Amy.L.Cavender.1@nd.edu========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 09:12:46 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0325 UNSUBscribing and SETting NOMAIL Option Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0325. Thursday, 2 May 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, May 2, 1996 Subject: UNSUBing or NOMAIL Option SHAKSPEReans, As the semester draws to a close for many of us, it is time for the annual explantion of the options you have when you will be away from your account: UNSUBscribing and SETting NOMAIL. UNSUBscribing: If you have joined SHAKSPER as part of a class or on a short-term basis or if you will be losing your account, please UNSUBscribe. To do so, send this -- UNSUB SHAKSPER to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu leaving the subject line blank. SETting NOMAIL: If you are going to be away from your account for a time, then SET your SHAKSPER account to NOMAIL. To do this, send the following message -- SET SHAKSPER NOMAIL to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu again leaving the subject line blank. When you want to resume your SHAKSPER mailings, send -- SET SHAKSPER MAIL -- to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu To order a list of LISTSERV commands, send -- GET LISTSERV COMMANDS -- to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu If you have other questions or problems, contact me at HMCook@boe00.minc.umd.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 09:18:31 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0326 CFP: Shakespeare and Ireland Conference Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0326. Thursday, 2 May 1996. From: Dennis Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 16:55:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: Shakespeare and Ireland Conference Shakespeare and Ireland A conference at Trinity College Dublin 21 to 23 March 1997 CALL FOR PAPERS In the debate over the colonial and post-colonial relationship between England and Ireland, Shakespeare has been a specially significant focus and contested critical site. His plays have been performed in Ireland since the seventeenth century, and from the eighteenth century Ireland produced some of the most significant of Shakespearean actors and scholars. His work has been a key part of the literary and educational canon in Ireland since the nineteenth century. Edward Dowden, appointed first Professor of English Literature at Trinity College in 1867, was the most influential interpreter of Shakespeare in his time. In the twentieth century the project of many of the major Irish writers in English, notably Shaw, Yeats and Joyce, involved an imaginative re-fashioning of Shakespeare. Irish productions in the modern period by Anew McMaster, Micheal Mac Liammoir and Hilton Edwards, represented a remarkable adaptation of English traditions of staging Shakespeare to Irish theatrical conditions. The three-day conference at Trinity College, Dublin, jointly sponsored by the School of English and the Samuel Beckett Centre for Drama and Theatre Studies, will bring together Renaissance scholars, theatre historians, cultural analysts, and theatre practitioners to explore the varied aspects of Shakespeare and Ireland. Performances of Shakespeare are planned at the Abbey Theatre and elsewhere to coincide with the meeting. Other associated events include a Shakespeare film season at the Irish Film Centre and exhibitions of Irish Shakespeareana at the Irish Theatre Archive and the Trinity College Dublin Library. Plenary sessions and smaller panels will take place on Friday and Saturday and on Sunday morning; the final afternoon will be devoted to panels on theatre practice. A volume of essays arising out of the conference is planned, most likely to be published by Cambridge University Press. Plenary speakers will include Terence Brown, Philip Edwards, Ania Loomba, and others. Proposals for papers are invited on any aspect of the topic, including Ireland and Renaissance drama Producing and reproducing Shakespeare, 1660 to the present Shakespeare, Ireland and the canon Colonial, post-colonial, or neo-colonial Shakespeare Shakespeare and the Irish literary imagination Shakespeare and the contemporary Irish theatre Proposals (of approximately 250 words) for papers lasting about 20 minutes should arrive by 15 September 1996 and be sent to: Professor Nicholas Grene School of English Trinity College Dublin 2 Ireland Fax: (+353.1) 671.7114 Further information is available on (+353.1) 608.2301 or email Dennis Kennedy at dkennedy@tcd.ie Conference Committee: Nicholas Grene and Dennis Kennedy (Trinity College, co-organizers), Karin McCully (Abbey Theatre), Christopher Murray (University College Dublin), Lynne Parker (Rough Magic Theatre Company) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 09:24:47 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0327 Re: Texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0327. Thursday, 2 May 1996. (1) From: John Drakakis Date: Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 17:13:20 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0321 Re: Texts (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 23:42:59 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0321 Re: Texts (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 17:13:20 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0321 Re: Texts As an editor of one of the volumes in the Shakespeare Originals series I thought I should not leap in to defend it. That is for others to do. I'm a little more concerned about Gabriel Egan's uncharacterstically sloppy deployment of the concept of "fetishization". Am I to understand from his use of the term that every time an editor focuses on a particular text, whether it be the first quarto of The Merchant, or Richard II, or the anonymous Famous Victories, or the Pied Bull Lear, or the Folio Hamlet, that the result is a fetishization? Perhaps he could explain himself in a little more detail maybe without "fetishizing" his own particular interests. Best wishes, John Drakakis (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 23:42:59 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0321 Re: Texts Andrew Murphy wrote >Though I cannot speak for the general editors of the Shakespearean Originals, >as a contributor to the series I feel I must take respectful exception to >Gabriel Egan's recent passing reference to the series' fetishization of the >quartos. In fact, the series is _not_ limited to editions of quarto texts, but >includes editions of F1 texts as well. I take the point, and concede that the series also fetishizes F1. The desire to "throw a cordon around" certain early printed texts is what I consider fetishization, and Andrew Murphy does not challenge this. A concern to deconstruct the editorial "myth of origin" which is part of the series' agenda, as I understand it, is a bit difficult to reconcile with the title "Shakespearean ORIGINALS", isn't it? Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 09:26:44 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0328 Schoenbaum Memorial Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0328. Thursday, 2 May 1996. From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 30 Apr 96 12:58:00 PDT Subject: Schoenbaum Memorial A memorial fund has been established in Sam Schoenbaum's memory at the Folger Shakespeare Library. His family requests that tributes to Sam be made to this fund. Contributions, payable to The Folger Shakespeare Library, may be sent to 201 East Capitol Street, SE, Washington, DC 20003. The memorial service for Sam will be held on Saturday, May 4th at 4PM in the Folger Reading Room. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 09:37:15 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0329 Re: Funeral Elegy; Hamlet Q1 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0329. Thursday, 2 May 1996. (1) From: Jonathan Hope Date: Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 18:29:46 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0323 Re: Funeral Elegy (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 22:49:54 -0500 (EST) Subj: FE and As (3) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 15:44:19 -0700 Subj: Funeral Elegy (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 01 May 1996 23:56:07 -0500 (EST) Subj: FE: Shakespeare Parallels (5) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 15:15:04 -0700 Subj: Hamlet Q1 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Hope Date: Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 18:29:46 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0323 Re: Funeral Elegy Thanks to Jim Halford for his account of my lecture (SHK7.0323), but- before people get too excited, I'd like to make a couple of things clear: my work on FE is at a very early stage - I've tested the poem using my methodology, but only against Shakespeare's dramatic verse, NOT against the poetry - so an obvious problem there. Furthermore, the fact that FE 'passes' the test doesn't mean anything more than Shakespeare *could* have written it: i.e. he could have been ruled out but wasn't. What I do certainly isn't like fingerprinting or DNA analysis, and I feel uncomfortable with claims for authorship studies that such positive identification is possible. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 22:49:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: FE and As This evening I found Don Foster's comments on "as" in *Elegy by W.S.: A Study in Attribuition.* "The poem does have a higher frequency of 'as' and 'which' than might be expected given Shakespeare's practice elsewhere, but the discrepancy is too small to be of mathematical importance" (147), and in a footnote he observes that "Shakespeare's use of both 'as' and 'which' increases in the last years of his career" (252, n. 54). So, basically, Don's conclusion is the same as mine -- though he reached his (I suppose) about ten years ago! Also, it may be noted that frequency tests -- especially relative frequency tests -- are a bit misleading. We can find individual sonnets, for example, where no "as" is used, and we find others where, say, four or five are used. So, to arrive at a relative frequency per thousand lines, we have to, as it were, take the sonnets as one long poem, rather than a series of individual poems. A more interesting question might be: does Shakespeare tend to cluster "ases"? And when does he cluster them? Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 15:44:19 -0700 Subject: Funeral Elegy Here's what Jim Helfers said in his March 25th post: "This discussion [about the FE] probably, in Barbara Stevenson's words, "portrays perfectly the current status of computational stylistics: the experts cannot agree on the ways statistics should be adapted to literary criticism...." And certainly never will, for, as Helfers says, "internal evidence is only a single factor in an overall effort to identify an author." I agree with both Stevenson and Helfers, and then Helfers directs us to Ward Elliott and Robert Valenze, who "have pioneered a further refinement of statistical measurement for stylometric analysis...." I was not looking for an argument, but only agreeing with the man. Item: Experts cannot agree. Item: Internal evidence (the count) is only a single factor. Item: Ward Elliott has made "refinements" in stylometrics. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 01 May 1996 23:56:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: FE: Shakespeare Parallels Today I was reviewing Don Foster's parallels between FE and Shakespeare's undoubted work. I found this part of his "Case for William Shakespeare" rather unsatisfactory. For example, "Fair lovely branch too soon cut off" (FE 234) is possibly a reference to the Epilogue of *Doctor Faustus* -- "Cut is the branch that might have grown full straight." The passages cited by Don (160) from R2 1.2.15-20 are also possible echoes of Marlowe. How can we be sure that FE is referring to R2? Don (161) quotes "Feeds on the bread of rest" (FE 444) and finds a parallel in "the bitter bread of banishment" (R2 3.1.21). There is quite a difference here between "bitter bread" and "bread of rest." When Shakespeare gives "bread" an emotional valence, it's often negative. For example, Hamlet's father dies "grossly, full of bread" (HAM 3.3.80), and compare "cramm'd with distressful bread" (H5 4.1.270). In MM, Lucio links the smell of "brown bread" to the smell of garlic, as in bad breath (3.2.184). As far as I can see, Shakespeare does not link "bread" and "rest" as does W.S. The parallel between the fall of the "seeled dove" (FE 454-56, which Don on page 196 links to Sidney's *Arcadia*) and the fall of Lucifer (H8 3.2.368-72) seems forced (Foster 165). "But whether doth the stream of my mischance/Drive me beyond my self" (FE 573-74, Foster 164) is said to be an image "derived from hunting" (Foster 165). It seems to me to be a water image -- and I find a parallel in Hooker's *Laws*. So the parallel with H8 1.1.141-43 seems incorrect. I realize that these few examples are hardly a full-scale attack, but they do suggest my hesitation. I find the argument from style much more compelling than the section called "Thematic and Verbal Affinities" (Foster 154ff). Yours, Bill Godshalk (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 15:15:04 -0700 Subject: Hamlet Q1 The so-called "bad" quarto is bad enough. Peter L. Groves quotes from it at length, and it sounds to me very much like the Duke in Huckleberry Finn, reciting the same soliloquy the best that he can piece it out from memory. "To be, or not to be; that is the bare bodkin That makes calamity of so long life; For who would fardels bear, till Birnm Wood do come to Dunsinane, But that the fear of something after death Murders the innocent sleep, Great nature's second course, And makes us rather sling the arrows of outrageous fortune Than fly to others that we know not of. There's the respect must give us pause...." An so forth, Chapter 21, and which is ridiculous onward and through, such as the bad quarto, it's rummaging in the memory banks: "To be, or not to be, I there's the point. To Die, to sleepe, is that all?" "No, no, there's much more, it went on and on..." "Oh, yes, let's see. Ah, I have it! No, to sleepe, to dreame, I mary there it goes..." "Look, we've got to get this published. Try again." "For in that dreame of death, when wee awake, And borne before an everlasting Judge, From whence no passenger ever retur'nd, The undiscovered country...." "Good, good...." "...The undiscovered country, at whose sight The happy smile, and...." "The 'happy smile'?! "I think it was the 'happy smile'." "Well, go on." "...happy smile and the accursed damn'd. But for this, the joyfull hope of this, Whol'd bear the scornes and flattery of the world, Scorned by the right rich, the rich curssed of the poore?" "That's it?" "If I could think on it overnight..." "All right, fine, do that. Good, good, now send in the kid. Ophelia, I mean." "It might not have been 'happy smile' in that place, you know there are so many words...." "Right, if you remember let me know. Work on it. Send in Ophelia...." "She could shave more, you know." "I'll mention it. Thanks." "Adieu." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 09:39:00 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0330 Othello's Love Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0330. Thursday, 2 May 1996. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 15:15:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Othello's Love The other day, one of my students argued that Othello's description of himself as "one who lov'd not wisely but too well" (Riverside 5.2.344) is a reference to his love for Iago. She pointed to Othello's "I greet thy {i.e., Iago's} love" (3.3.469) as evidence. Certainly this makes sense of a line that has been problematic for many auditors. If Othello speaks the line while gesturing toward Iago, it makes perfect sense. If spoken about his love for Desdemona, it seems misguided. I imagine that this suggestion has been made before, but I can't remember seeing it. In any case, I think it's worth noting and, perhaps, debating. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 09:42:13 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0331 Re: Manfred Mickleson Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0331. Thursday, 2 May 1996. From: Dale Lyles Date: Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 22:54:59 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0324 Manfred Mickleson LOL! Thank you, Leo Daugherty, for Manfred Mickleson! I'm going to report his dissertation topic to my cast of Pirates of Penzance to see what they make of it. In the same vein of high silliness, has anyone else seen the website offering a new edition of Hamlet, newly reconstructed in the "original Klingon"? The engraving of Shakespeare at the top is worth the trip. I can't remember the URL, but it can be found at Yahoo, New for 4/30/96, Social Sciences. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company Newnan, GA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 12:40:55 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0332 Re: Othello's Love Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0332. Friday, 3 May 1996. (1) From: Thomas E. Ruddick Date: Thursday, 2 May 96 11:19:57 EST Subj: RE: SHK 7.0330 Othello's Love (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 02 May 1996 17:35:15 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0330 Othello's Love (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 02 May 1996 21:53:22 -0500 (EST) Subj: Loving Iago (4) From: Richard W Bovard Date: Friday, 3 May 1996 10:02:06 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0330 Othello's Love (5) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 3 May 1996 11:00:21 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0330 Othello's Love (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas E. Ruddick Date: Thursday, 2 May 96 11:19:57 EST Subject: RE: SHK 7.0330 Othello's Love When Othello says "loved not wisely, but too well" I see it as another example of Shakespeare recommending that strong passions be tempered by judgment. From an actor's viewpoint, one might interpret this line as Othello's dying realization of his _hamartia_, a moment of clarity concerning his own motives and failings just before his own life ends. The theme of strong passion tempered by reason pops up elsewhere in Shakespeare; in Romeo and Juliet, for example, Friar Laurence counsels Romeo again and again to "Love moderately." It's expressed yet again, I think, by Puck's assessment of the four impassioned youths, "what fools these mortals be!" Othello's line doesn't need to refer to any particular "love"--his passions for Desdemona, Iago, Cassio, and others were all powerfully expressed. "Too well" here means excess, not excellence, I think. "TR" --Thomas E. Ruddick, Edison Community College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 02 May 1996 17:35:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0330 Othello's Love Dear Bill Godshalk--Of course, your student could have also used the lines "I kiss the instruments of their pleasures" (IV.i. 214) to support the argument that the line in question is not in reference to Desdemona-- rather than simply reducing it to Iago specifically. Nonetheless, I would not object to a perfomance in which Othello gestures to Iago (if subtle--if he doesn't saw the air with his hands, etc.). But it seems Iago HAS already been overdetermined as a scapegoat in this last scene, and maybe what should pointed to is an iceberg of which IAGO is only the tip (i.e. their pleasure---the white men of Venice, the plumed troop that makes ambition virtue, etc.) The distinction between "not wisely" and "too well"---is it REALLY misguided if applied to "desdemona." After all, isn't "loving too well" the same as not loving well enough? Or is it an attempt to REDEEM Othello (like in MUCH ADO--Our only fault was in mistaking---)? A spin-control? I think not. And therefore the line isn't problematic for me, even if played as referring to "Desdemona". Yours (ha ha), Chris (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 02 May 1996 21:53:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Loving Iago Offline I got the following response from Judith Angelo. I think it's worth recording as a genuine, untutored response to the Othello's loving not wisely but too well: "A few months ago, I took my 15 year old daughter Sarah to see the most recent film of Othello. As we were walking home, she said that the line about loving not wisely, was neither troubling nor ironic (as I tried to explain), because the Moor is speaking of his love for Iago. In fact she thought this was the obvious interpretation. "I had never read this take either, and granted the latest movie does play up the homoerotic theme, but there she was. Pretty cool, huh? Cite her if you like: Sarah Josephine Stewart, Cleveland Heights OH." Yeah, pretty cool, I agree. Yours, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard W Bovard Date: Friday, 3 May 1996 10:02:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0330 Othello's Love Yes, indeed. Such a gesture is consistent with the earlier parody of the marriage ceremony, when Othello embraces Iago. Shakespeare has worked on this irony before, has he not? In "Julius Caesar," most of the male characters speak of their love for one another. And that speaking helps to create the hollow feeling of the play for some of us. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 3 May 1996 11:00:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0330 Othello's Love Regarding Bill Godshalk's student's comment on who Othello meant by "loving not wisely but too well;" an interpretation of the relationship between Othello and Iago that shows latent (or not so latent) homosexuality explains more than just this line. It also gives a believable motive for Iago's otherwise "motiveless malignity," and for the powerful hold he has on Othello, not really understandable in any other terms. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 12:45:44 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0333 Re: Texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0333. Friday, 3 May 1996. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 2 May 1996 20:06:27 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0327 Re: Texts (2) From: Andrew Murphy Date: Friday, 3 May 1996 14:09:39 +0100 (BST) Subj: Texts (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 2 May 1996 20:06:27 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0327 Re: Texts John Drakakis wrote >I'm a >little more concerned about Gabriel Egan's uncharacterstically sloppy >deployment of the concept of "fetishization". Thanks for the compliment, I think... The Shakespearean Originals series is based on the principle that the early printed texts are all we have and that to try to project beyond these particular textual manifestations to the 'real' underlying texts (eg the authorial draft. or the first performed version) is self-delusional. As over-determined collaborational manifestations of a collective dramatic practice, the early printed texts have a validity not accounted for by post-Romantic notions of individual authorial responsibility. Since our models of creative production are inadequate for such texts we cannot reasonably differentiate the effects of random corruption from other possible determinants and hence we ought not to edit the texts by reference to models of what Shakespeare intended. The best we can do is to "throw a cordon around" (Andrew Spong's phrase, I think) the extant texts and reproduce them as faithfully as possible. This is the point of the Shakespearean Originals series as I understand it. Such thinking actually passes off non-editing as editing, but not done to the standards of, say, the Malone Society Reprints. There is a need to have available reproductions of early printed texts, but to suggest that these can stand on their own as play-texts is misleading. Some textual deficiencies can be made sense of by reference to a model of textual transmission from authorial foul-papers (which, admittedly, we do not have) to hand-press. That we do not have foul-papers should not prevent the use of models of textual transmission to explain manifest problems with the extant early printed texts. The "throwing a cordon around" these texts locates in them a spurious textual authority, which is no more intellectually defensible than the privileging of pre-theatrical dramatic texts over post-theatrical dramatic texts, which post-Romantic models of creation (especially: lone private creation = good, communal public creation = bad) have fostered. These prejudices in locating textual authority make a fetish-object out of particular printed entities rather than attempting to account for those entities within a historically grounded model of production. The intellectual labour and intention of an individual dramatist working in a early capitalist dramatic collective IS a reasonable referent within a Marxist model of creative production in late C16 and early C17. Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Murphy Date: Friday, 3 May 1996 14:09:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: Texts I would agree with John Drakakis that 'fetishization' (like theory, once upon a time) seems, as Gabriel Egan uses the term, to be the thing the other guy does and never the thing you do yourself. Heavily edited texts -- even non-sensically conflated texts -- have been centralised and valorised for going on four centuries, but somehow that process of centralization does not constitute fetishization, whereas any attempt to turn attention to the earliest textualisations does. This strikes me as rather odd. Gabriel Egan raises the question of the title of the Shakespearean Originals series. My understanding of the title is that 'Shakespearean' indicates that the texts included have a relationship to the Shakespeare canon, not that everything is believed to be the direct product of Shakespeare himself. 'Originals' indicates that what is provided is an edition of the first printed version of this particular textualisation (in my own case, an edition of Q1 _Othello_, published a year prior to F1, in 1622). It is not a question of some sort of mythical 'origins', rather a question of temporal priority. Again: what puzzles me is the energy which appears to be invested in resisting these texts. In my own teaching practice I will sometimes use texts from the Penguin series (because they are cheap); sometimes from the Arden series (because they are scholarly and well annotated); sometimes from other series. However, as someone interested in history and in textual matters, I feel it is important that students (and scholars) are alive to the fact that the modernised text which they study often bears little enough resemblance to the textualisation(s) first published during the Renaissance period. For this reason, I also direct my students to the Originals and to facsimile editions. It's fine by me if others would rather stick exclusively with texts which are layered with four centuries of what Michael Warren has called 'editorial fossilization.' Or should that, again, be 'fetishization'? Andrew Murphy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 12:53:15 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0324 Street Shakespeare; Revenge Plays; Opinion Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0334. Friday, 3 May 1996. (1) From: Richard Ahern Date: Thursday, 02 May 1996 12:00:03 -0700 Subj: Street Shakespeare (2) From: Gareth M. Euridge Date: Friday, 03 May 1996 10:06:14 -0400 Subj: Revenge Plays (3) From: JeanSebastien LaTour Date: Thursday, 2 May 1996 18:17:53 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Your opinion about a paper ... (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Ahern Date: Thursday, 02 May 1996 12:00:03 -0700 Subject: Street Shakespeare Several friends and I wish to perform parts of the plays and the sonnets on the street as a free entertainment this summer. While we are fairly comfortable identifying monlogues that are suitable for the street, i.e. are relatively straightforward and don't require much in the way of explanation, context, or set to be entertaining, we are having less success locating dialogues, especially between men, which appear interesting or colorful enough for such informal performance. We would appreciate any suggestions you might have. Thank you. Richard Ahern Alexandria, Virginia (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gareth M. Euridge Date: Friday, 03 May 1996 10:06:14 -0400 Subject: Revenge Plays Next year I will be teaching a senior seminar on renaissance revenge, non-shakespearean, starting probably with Kyd (or Seneca!) and meandering forward to perhaps Shirley and later Fletcherian tragicomedies. We may even dilettantize with some prose texts. My problem. I want to save my students some money, and, rather than making them pay for lots of individual texts, would like to find a suitable core anthology to which I could add a few selective single texts, even a packet, as necessary. Any tips regarding texts, contexts, life would be greatly appreciated. It might be best to respond directly to me, but if others express an interest, this public thread could even rival the wondrous longevity of "funeral"! Before summer whisks many of us away, with thanks, gareth euridge Denison University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JeanSebastien LaTour Date: Thursday, 2 May 1996 18:17:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Your opinion about a paper ... Hello, I am a member of the list since a long time, even though it is the first time that I send a message. This is a paper I had to do for one of my course in New Jersey. To everybody (but especially the specialists: could you read it and give me your opinion, any criticism is very welcome. Feel free to put it aside and read it later if you want. Thank you The end of a cycle The usurpation of the throne by Bolingbroke deprives England from a legitimate king, a legitimate center; the equilibrium is broken. In Richard II, Shakespeare describes the end of a cycle and introduces two rulers who are unaware of their roles in this inevitable process. John of Gaunt is the first to predict Richards fall when he says "Methinks I am a prophet new inspired, / And thus expiring do foretell of him ..." (Shakespeare, Richard II, II, i, 31-32). Shakespeare transforms him into a prophet skilled with an acute perception of the time he lives in since he perceives the decaying of England. The once edenic England is now at the end of a cycle, but a new beginning cannot occur until the heart or the principle is destroyed. Richard as a king is the heart of England. Shakespeare makes this connection clear when Gaunt (prophet) says "Now he that made me know I see thee ill; / Ill in myself to see, and in thee seeing ill. / Thy deathbed is no lesser than thy land" (II, i, 93-95) Furthermore, Gaunt does not even die in the presence of Richard. It is Shakespeares intention to show symbolically that the King is completely unaware of the process that will end with his fall and give birth to "Disorder, horror, fear and mutiny in England" (IV, i, 142-143). However, the gravity of the situation cannot be completely perceived before act V, scene 3. Indeed, York who has just discovered the treason of his son Aumerle, asks Bolingbroke for the death of his son. It is only the Duchesss intervention that can spare Aumerle. Although no one is executed, the episode hightlights the gravity of the situation. Thus, Shakespeare describes the development of disorder at different level under Bolingbrokes ruling. The family nucleus like England is disordered. York is subject to the King and father of his son, but from now on these two roles become contradictory. The cohesion within the family, if not the individual, is destroyed. After the Land of England has been separated from its legitimate King, after the break within the family, Shakespeare highlights the break between the Kingship and the ruler. When Bolingbroke has Richard murdered, we perceive Bolingbrokes misunderstanding of the situation. Richard is already out of power, and his speeches all through the play make him unlikely to conquer a throne by actions. By the way, the murder of Richard is more the revenge of a man than the action of a deserving King. Bolingbroke also is unaware of the symbolical process that brought him to the throne. However, in a more general perspective, all the disorders, all the broken equilibrium and all the contradictions are perfectly justified since every possibility even though monstruous has to be exploited before a cycle can be really completed. Once order (Richard and his predecessors) and disorder (Bolingbroke) have passed away, a new cycle can begin with a great King, like Henry V, at its heart. Works Cited Shakespeare, William, Richard II, eds Kenneth Muir and Silvan Barnet, Signet Classic: New York, 1988. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 12:59:15 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0335 Re: Klingon Hamlet; Funeral Elegy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0335. Friday, 3 May 1996. (1) From: Erika Lin Date: Thursday, 2 May 1996 12:49:42 -0700 Subj: Re: Klingon Hamlet (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 02 May 1996 17:08:27 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0329 Re: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Erika Lin Date: Thursday, 2 May 1996 12:49:42 -0700 Subject: Re: Klingon Hamlet For Dale Lyles-- The URL for the Klingon Hamlet (as forwarded to me from a graduate student friend) is http://www.kli.org/kli/Hamlet.html. Erika Lin (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 02 May 1996 17:08:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0329 Re: Funeral Elegy I was very interested in Jonathan Hope's comments about FE. He writes finally: >What I do certainly isn't like fingerprinting or DNA analysis, and I feel >uncomfortable with claims for authorship studies that such positive >identification is possible. I hope he won't take this as a hostile question, but I wonder why is feels uncomfortable with authorship studies that claim an absolute identification. I would genuinely like to know the sources of his skepticism. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 13:02:10 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0336 MRDS Newsletter Online Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0336. Friday, 3 May 1996. From: Jesse D. Hurlbut Date: Thursday, 2 May 1996 21:32:41 -0700 Subject: MRDS Newsletter Online [Editor's Note: This announcement appeared yesterday on PERFORM. --HMC] A sneak preview version of the MRDS newsletter is now available at the following WWW location (an abbreviated version will appear here on PERFORM tomorrow): http://www.byu.edu/~hurlbut/mrds/spring96.html Thanks, Jesse_Hurlbut@byu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 08:20:19 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0337 Re: Othello's Love Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0337. Sunday, 5 May 1996. (1) From: W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Date: Friday, 03 May 1996 15:16:14 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0332 Re: Othello's Love (2) From: Seth Barron Date: Friday, 3 May 1996 15:47:30 -0400 (EDT) Subj: othello's love (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Date: Friday, 03 May 1996 15:16:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0332 Re: Othello's Love I must admit that I like the idea of "Not too wisely, but too well" potentially referring to Iago, and perhaps we should see this line as referring to all of Othello's potential "loves." However, in context, I think the line is likely to relate to Desdemona primarily. It seems to me that Othello is attempting to revise his reputation in this speech. He begins: Soft you; a word or two before you go. I have done the state some service, and they know't-- No more of that. Othello begins by considering the possibility that he could redeem his reputation (perhaps even his life) by reminding the Venetians how much of a debt they owe to him. However he thinks better of this approach (why is a question I often ask my students). He then asks them to Speak of me as I am; nothing extenuate, Nor aught set down in malice. Then must you speak Of one that lov'd not wisely but too well; Of one not easily jealious, but being wrought, Perplexed in the extreme; of one whose hand (Like the base [Indian]) threw the pearl away Richer than all his tribe . . . The line about loving could refer to other people, but I think that as we move through the passage it is clear that Othello has Desdemona in mind. I find it interesting that immediately after these lines, he begins to tell a story--one, I imagine, like those he told to woo Desdemona--that lulls his audience just enough to allow himself to commit suicide. W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Department of Literature and Language University of North Carolina at Asheville (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Seth Barron Date: Friday, 3 May 1996 15:47:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: othello's love I think the object of Othello's love is quite purposefully indeterminate. Recall his odd line earlier, "Villain, be sure thou prove my love a whore" (3.3.365), where "my love" can be either Desdemona or, simply, Othello's capacity to love: his anxiety is that his own desire is whorish, available to all. Maybe the end of the play is showing us that Othello is one who loved not wisely but too well insofar as his love was really objectless, but was a kind of self-supporting egosphere which by 5.2. has crumbled. Seth Barron ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 08:26:55 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0338 Re: Texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0338. Sunday, 5 May 1996. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 3 May 1996 20:41:03 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0333 Re: Texts (2) From: John Drakakis Date: Saturday, 04 May 1996 02:43:32 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0333 Re: Texts (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 3 May 1996 20:41:03 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0333 Re: Texts I am aware that the delays in cyberspace (and, probably, in Hardy-space) make for the kind of overlapping of question and response that satellite-bounced 'phone calls are subject to, but I wish to impatiently respond to Andrew Murphy, who wrote of the Shakespearean Originals series: >'Originals' indicates that what is provided is an edition of the first printed >version of this particular textualisation (in my own case, an edition of Q1 >_Othello_, published a year prior to F1, in 1622). It is not a question of some >sort of mythical 'origins', rather a question of temporal priority. Surely Q1, Q2, F1 are the textualizations, and the correct generic term embracing these variants is 'play'? So, the series provides the first printed version of the play. Doesn't this concern for "temporal priority" conflict with the notion that each textualization has an independent validity? Why reprint only the earliest, especially in a series called "Originals"? This inevitably suggests that the earliest have a greater validity because they are the earliest. >It's fine by me if others would rather stick exclusively with texts which are >layered with four centuries of what Michael Warren has called 'editorial >fossilization.' Or should that, again, be 'fetishization'? The Shakespearean Originals have layers of editorial interference which they do not come clean about. For example, in King Lear the scene in which Gloster is led to believe that he is climbing the Dover cliff begins thus: Enter Gloster and Edmund (p133) This palpable error (ie Edmund for Edgar) comes from Q1 and must be attributed to carelessness or interference by someone who doesn't know the story, probably a compositor. The Shakespearean Originals editor keeps it in, and thereby retains Q1's contradiction between the stage direction and the subsequent speech prefixes: Edmund, if he is present, does not speak, and Edgar, who is not present, does speak. This is an example of the false claim that these texts can stand 'as-is' as play-texts. This claim is only true if we abandon certain dramatic conventions regarding the relationship between stage directions and speech prefixes, and we have no reason to abandon these conventions when a simple model of compositorial error will do instead. But, fine, the Shakespearean Originals editors want to keep interference to a minimum so they prefer the contradictory Q1 version. But they do not follow this principle consistently. On p83 there is a stage direction "Exit Edgar" which in Q1 is clearly "Exit Fdgar". Why doesn't this use of 'F' for 'E' (and it is not one of Blayney's modified 'E's, I think) matter enough to be retained? It too might be a compositorial slip, although the argument that it is the nominal literalization of the burgeoning effacement of Edgar's personality has some charm to it as well. The General Introduction says "we have aimed at 'diplomatic' rather than facsimile status" (p10), but this is one of many examples of the failure of the series to hit its target. Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Saturday, 04 May 1996 02:43:32 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0333 Re: Texts I think Gabriel Egan has in part answered my question, though I still think that "fetishization" as I understand the term in its context in Marx and Freud is not what is going on. The function of the series is to try to focus attention on the texts that lie behind modern edited editions, that is to say diplomatic editions. The objective is not to reproduce exactly the typography, lineation, etc. of a quarto- that would require a facsimile edition- but to give students a flavour of an old-spelling text with its inconsistencies. We get into much deeper water when we start talking about "intellectual labour and intention". I suppose how you respond to this issue depends on whether you are prepared to take on board the directions which marxist enquiry has taken over the past 20 years or so. There is much to attend to in these texts at the level of the signifier, and I think we should be just a little more cautious before we push on too hastily to the level of the signified. Early texts are never quite what they seem. The Shakespeare Originals series, however, is not unedited. The moment I substitute a modern "s" character for a long "s" then I'm editing. The question is: what might that change signify? the moment I replace an intial "i" with a modern "j", and normalize that practice throughout a text, I'm interfering with it, giving it a uniformity that the copy-text might not possess. The moment I select one copy of a quarto as my copy-text I am limiting the possibilities of textual variation that I might find if I collated it with other quartos from the same edition. If I were to undertake this kind of textual work it would lead me in the direction of compositorial rather than authorial labour, and once we arrive at that point, then the question of authorial intention is really a very complex one indeed. I would be a little more persuaded by Gabriel Egan's use of the term "fetishise" if he could convince me that the late 16th or early 17th century book trade was a full-blown capitalist activity. In what ways was the author, and/or the compositor alienated from the fruits of his labour? In what ways did the book represent a fetishized object? How might that differ from the ways in which we treat books as commodities now? Best wishes, John Drakakis ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 08:32:53 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0339 Re: Street Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0339. Sunday, 5 May 1996. (1) From: Porter Jamison Date: Friday, 3 May 1996 20:19:07 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0324 Street Shakespeare (2) From: A. E. B. Coldiron Date: Saturday, 4 May 1996 09:12:03 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Street Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Porter Jamison Date: Friday, 3 May 1996 20:19:07 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0324 Street Shakespeare >Several friends and I wish to perform . . . on the street >as a free entertainment this summer. We are having >(difficulties) locating dialogues, especially between men, >which appear interesting or colorful enough for such >informal performance. 2m: CE; III,2 (sexist, but funny-- can be adapted to 2f) 1m1f: IH4; III,1 AW; II,2 Multi: R&J; I,1 All bold, require little explanation, and short. (It's difficult finding good scenes of this nature that work in isolation-- but you can also adapt and condense material from longer scenes. Check out IH4 Falstaff-Hal scenes.) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: A. E. B. Coldiron Date: Saturday, 4 May 1996 09:12:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Street Shakespeare Colorful bits you might wish to consider for your street Shakespeare: Winter's Tale, some of Autolycus' appearances in Act 4. 4.3 has a pickpocket scene, perhaps too close for comfort depending on the city in which you wish to play this; 4.4 includes the rustics' songs; later, around 4.4.700ff, after a clothing-switch, Autolycus feigns courtier status--this is fun to play with and without a change of accent on his part, creating different levels of incongruity between speech and clothing. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 08:36:23 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0340 MUCH ADO about explication (paraphrase) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0340. Sunday, 5 May 1996. From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 03 May 1996 18:30:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: MUCH ADO about explication (paraphrase) I would be interested in how others explicate this line from the "mouth" of DON JOHN in the church scene of MUCH ADO. I have not come across an adequate "reading" of it as of yet. The line is: "There is not chastity enough in language/ Without offence to utter them." (97-98). At first I want to invert the order of the phrasing of the second line to "make sense" of it. "To utter them without offence." The them refers to "hero's 'crimes'"--but what is the offence? To whom? Does JOHN mean that if only language were more chaste, then I could utter Hero's 'crimes' without offense. But since language lacks such chastity, I will offend YOU (since you asked) by giving it (language) free reign, or at least a wider range than had been previously seen in the restricted "courtesy" (which masquerades as morality) of MESSINA." (end of my putting words in DJ's mouth) ---- The weirdness (for me) of this statement is that it seems to point towards LANGUAGE as the culprit at least as much (and maybe more) as it does to Hero's "crimes." If this is so, this seems to be consistent with Don John's function in the play (which, in part, is to make the more "major" characters confront the narrowness of their linguistic functional, and the emotional, ethical consequences such a narrowness leads to (disaster in the H-C plot; stalemate in the B-B plot). And DJ, in bringing a wider range of linguistic behavior, to Claudio who never tempted Hero "WITH A WORD TOO WIDE"---the "ill word" that poisons LIKING, is speaking another line that seems to call attention to this "substratum" of the PLAY. I don't think this is overanalysis (or what R.), but am curious what others think. Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 08:40:25 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0341 Re: Revenge Plays; Hamlet Q1 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0341. Sunday, 5 May 1996. (1) From: Clifford Ronan Date: Saturday, 4 May 1996 09:32:58 +0200 (MET DST) Subj: Re: Revenge Plays (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Saturday, 4 May 1996 16:44:38 -0700 Subj: Hamlet Q1 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clifford Ronan Date: Saturday, 4 May 1996 09:32:58 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Re: Revenge Plays Dear Gareth Euridge, Have you seen the 1995 *Four Revenge Tragedies* edited by K. E. Maus for Oxford World Classics. $10.95, it says. It includes Spanish Tragedy, Revenger's Tragedy, Atheist's Tragedy, and Revenge of Bussy D'Amboise. Cliff Ronan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Saturday, 4 May 1996 16:44:38 -0700 Subject: Hamlet Q1 George Duthie in his book "The 'Bad' Quarto of Hamlet"+, proposes a "reporter" that patched up a "Hamlet" for the 1603 edition. "...in the process of memorial reconstuction the reporter has confused similiar situations in different plays of the same type. Either that, or he has diliberately borrowed from other plays in reconstructing 'Hamlet'. [and] "A memorial reconstructor, reproducing 'Hamlet' as best he could, has, diliberately or involuntarily, borrowed passages from other plays altogether, often setting them down incorrectly since he had only his memory to aid him." Such as the Duke in Huck Finn. And such as Hamlet Q1 seems to be taken out of memory, dreams, performance and sack, thrust upon the world by ambition and advantage, poor creature advanced before its time. +Cambridge 1969. No. VI, "Shakespeare Problems", edited by A.W. Pollard & J. Dover Wilson. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 11:04:04 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0342 Re: Othello's Love Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0342. Monday, 6 May 1996. (1) From: Pat Dunlay Date: Sunday, 05 May 1996 10:19:22 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0337 Re: Othello's Love (2) From: Herman Asarnow Date: Sunday, 5 May 1996 09:02:16 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0337 Re: Othello's Love (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Dunlay Date: Sunday, 05 May 1996 10:19:22 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0337 Re: Othello's Love Another word on Othello's speech before suicide. I agree that he refers to his love for Desdemona, but have always found this speech as his or Shakespeare's trying to elicit some sympathy for a man who has just cruelly murdered his innocent wife. It works too in our post-Romantic world! Most of my students modify their outrage at Othello because, poor fellow, he did it out of unwise, but extreme "love". It sounds much like overzealous wife beaters today. It could certainly be Shakespeare's way of allowing us to "pity" the fallen hero in Aristotle's definition of tragedy. At this point, however, I want to stay angry at him and find myself challenging this speech or at least, encouraging my students to examine their responses to it. Interestingly, I don't have the same response to MacBeth's "Tommorow and tommorrow and tomorrow" which serves for me a similar function. Maybe Macbeth is just a better play! Pat Dunlay (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Herman Asarnow Date: Sunday, 5 May 1996 09:02:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0337 Re: Othello's Love One might support Seth Barron's "I think the object of Othello's love is quite purposefully indeterminate" by recalling Othello's speech as he prepares to smother Desdemona: "It is the cause. It is the cause....Let me not name it to you, my soul." The point may be that Othello, quite opposite Hamlet, can't "think too precisely on the event," or think precisely at all. He truly cannot name "it"--why he is about to murder Desdemona--because he does not really know why he's going to do it. And W. Russell Mayes, Jr.'s view that Othello is "attempting to revise his reputation" fits well with the "indeterminate" reading of who Othello loved not wisely but too well. Othello's concern about reputation at the end of the play can indeed be tied back to his wooing of Desdemona, in its boastfulness and its lack of veracity. He seems at the end a disintegrating character flinging forth whatever ideas come to his mind that might exculpate his behavior--hence the shifting from one stance, from the "Soft, you..." speech to the other rhetorical approach, beginning with "No more of that..." (i.e., okay, let's be frank). The horror is that, human as he is, his compass is wildly spinning here. He sees what's happened, but cannot recover his orientation (his reason). Only death can stop him spinning. Herman Asarnow University of Portland ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 11:08:42 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0343 Re: Texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0343. Monday, 6 May 1996. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 5 May 1996 20:45:45 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0338 Re: Texts (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 05 May 1996 15:53:47 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0338 Re: Texts (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 5 May 1996 20:45:45 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0338 Re: Texts John >I would be a little more persuaded by Gabriel Egan's use of the term >"fetishise" if he could convince me that the late 16th or early 17th century >book trade was a full-blown capitalist activity. Would you settle for 'fetishize' = 'irrationally invest with significance'? The Shakespearean Originals do not do diplomatic transcription, despite the claim of the General Introduction. To retain some accidentals and not others without a stated set of criteria has the effect of privileging certain textual features without good reason. Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 05 May 1996 15:53:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0338 Re: Texts John Drakakis writes: >I would be a little more persuaded by Gabriel Egan's use of the term >"fetishise" if he could convince me that the late 16th or early 17th century >book trade was a full-blown capitalist activity. In what ways was the author, >and/or the compositor alienated from the fruits of his labour? In what ways did >the book represent a fetishized object? How might that differ from the ways in >which we treat books as commodities now? These are very valuable questions and well asked. In the past half century, we have learned more about the book trade in the late 16th and earlier 17th century, but, for example, what was the economic function of man like Thomas Thorpe? He seems -- and I mean "seems" -- to have been some kind of capitalist middle man. But was he really a "publisher" in the 20th century meaning of that word? Was he the man who put up the capital, paid for the printing, and then distributed the books to the booksellers? Did he get a percentage from the sales? Did he pay royalties of a sort to writers in his stable? Or was the 16th-17th century book trade really very much a "vanity" trade? Did men like Thorpe act as agents for people who wanted to have their books published? Did he get money up front from writers who paid his fees? IF Shakespeare used Thorpe as an "agent," wouldn't Thorpe expect to get paid for his time? (Note the "if.") I'd love to know for sure. If by "fetish" we mean "an object of unreasonably excessive attention" (possibly sublimated sexual attention), then books seem to have had that value by the early 17th century. See the Epistle to the quarto of *Troilus and Cressida* which hints at a lively second-hand book trade: when Shakespeare's "Commedies {are} out of sale, you will scramble for them, and set vp a new English Inquisition" (A1v). Couldn't you argue from this statement to "book fetish"? This sounds like biblioholism to me. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 11:14:24 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0344 Re: MUCH ADO about explication Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0344. Monday, 6 May 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 05 May 1996 16:21:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0340 MUCH ADO about explication (paraphrase) (2) From: Jeff Myers Date: Sunday, 5 May 1996 21:08:59 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0340 MUCH ADO about explication (paraphrase) (3) From: Joseph Lockett Date: Sunday, 5 May 1996 20:40:51 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: MUCH ADO about explication (paraphrase) (4) From: Florence Amit Date: Monday, 06 May 1996 15:38:59 +0300 Subj: re. MUCH ADO about explication (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 05 May 1996 16:21:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0340 MUCH ADO about explication (paraphrase) Chris Stroffolino asks about this pssage: Don John says: "Fie, fie, they are not to be named, my lord {Don Pedro}, / Not to be spoke of; / There is not chastity enough in language / Without offense to utter them" (4.1.97-98). I assume that "they" and "them" refers back to "vile encounters" (93) in Don Pedro's speech. I assume that the "offense" would be given to the assembled onstage audience -- if Don Pedro detailed Hero's supposed faults, and I further assume that Don John does not want details to be given because details can be falsified as readily as verified. He wants the charges to be vague. Chris is right in drawing our attention to Don John's strange charge that "language" in general lacks "chastity enough" to detail Hero's "vile encounters" without giving offense. It may be hyperbole: e.g., she's so bad that you can't talk about her without offending people! Or is it a way of subtly absolving himself from the slander? E.g., it's the language that's at fault; don't blame me. In any case, I wonder if Chris could unpack his second paragraph for us. Have some words dropped out? Obviously "words" are important! Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Sunday, 5 May 1996 21:08:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0340 MUCH ADO about explication (paraphrase) I believe Don John is saying that language does not provide words chaste enough to describe Hero's crimes without offending the listener. In other words, he is lamenting the absence of euphemisms. He is also conveniently avoiding describing events that never happened, which is always advisable when telling a lie. Jeff Myers (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Lockett Date: Sunday, 5 May 1996 20:40:51 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: MUCH ADO about explication (paraphrase) Quoth Chris Stroffolino : > "There is not chastity enough in language/ Without offence to > utter them." (97-98). I just finished a run playing the role of Leonato, so I thought I'd comment on this. Our Don John played this line as "Hero's crimes are such that I cannot refer to them, even in glancing circumlocutions, without giving offence to you by their very nature and integral lewdness." You cannot describe these crimes without being offensive: there are no chaste euphemisms equal to the task. (How would one refer to bestiality, say, while at Victorian high tea?) As to WHY John would interject so, look at the text and situation itself. Don Pedro has just laid forth the whole of his and Claudio's "proof": "Myself, my brother, and this grieved Count Did see her, hear her, at that hour last night, Talk with a ruffian at her chamber-window, Who hath indeed, most like a liberal villain, Confess'd the vile encounters they have had A thousand times in secret." (IV.i.89-94) This is an accusation that invites questions and conjecture, the very thing that John's plot using Borachio cannot easily withstand. Who was the ruffian? Was Hero in her room at that time (no, as we find later). How could this have happened "a thousand times" if Beatrice has "until last night... this twelvemonth been her bedfellow" (IV.i.148-9)? John knows his plot cannot withstand such inspection, so he cleverly and quickly brings the attention of the wedding party back to the emotional impact of Hero's crimes themselves, and not their rational context. He thus sets Claudio off into his "O Hero! What a Hero hadst thou been!" speech, and thus their subsequent departure. Rather than a paean to the deceptive qualities of language, John's rhetorical slight of hand seems to me more an example of the deception he can practice, of the false emotional masks which he can don, but which escape the rest of the characters of the play (Benedick "Well, every one can master a grief but he that has it" (III.ii.26), Leonato "Men can counsel and speak passion to that grief which they themselves not feel; but, tasting it, their counsel turns to passion" (V.i.20-23), for example). (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Florence Amit Date: Monday, 06 May 1996 15:38:59 +0300 Subject: re. MUCH ADO about explication Reply to Chris Stoffolino: I had not thought to examine "Much Ado About Nothing" for Hebrew, but this prompted viewing of the church scene, shows there is quite a lot. It does seem profitable to continue researching the whole play, for the clues and ironies that I anticipate will be revealed as they are in this scene. Even Hero's name transposed into Hebrew refers to her denunciation. It is hee, meaning 'she' and roah, meaning 'bad': ' She is bad'. The name has other interesting possibilities and they all come to bear. Concerning that troublesome word "utter". When Friar Francis in his purity of mind uses it during the wedding ceremony, saying, "charge you, on your souls, / to utter it." , utter can have these Hebrew meanings: aut , 'sign' and tur, 'explore' , 'on your souls explore this sign, this significance' He also can be saying 'hamper' itar (alef, tof, resh) and 'remove' ator, (aiyn, tet, vov, resh) " impediments". However when the deceitful Don John says the word other Hebrew connotations are present. The proximity and notion of the word language results in the common expression atur lashon meaning ornamental and insincere speech . This is the confirmation that Chris Stoffolino sought for the criminality of language. The phrase can thus be continued , "without offense" to 'embellish' or by the word for 'odor', atar (aiyn, tof, resh) . It is worth looking for Hebrew ironies in everything that Don John says but let this suffice for the query. Florence Amit ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 11:19:30 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0345 Re: Street Shakespeare; Revenge Plays Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0345. Monday, 6 May 1996. (1) From: Joanne Walen Date: Sunday, 5 May 1996 23:15:22 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0339 Re: Street Shakespeare (2) From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Monday, 6 May 1996 16:28:14 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0324 Revenge Plays (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Sunday, 5 May 1996 23:15:22 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0339 Re: Street Shakespeare Something which always works in high school classes and could be adapted for performance on the street: play out a series of insults, with appropriate gestures and insinuations or "fighting stance" or cocktail party chatter, etc., etc. The richness of the language comes through, and the subtext is immediately apparent. This might not sustain your entire performance, but it could certainly be a part of it. Good sources of activities as well as insults: _Shakespeare's Insults: Educating Your Wit_, (1991) Wayne Hill & Cynthia Ottchen, MainSail Press, Cambridge (ISBN 0-9518684-0-3); _Shakespeare's Book of Insults, Insights & Infinite Jests_, (1984) John W. Seder, Templegate Publ., Springfield, IL. (ISBN 0-87243-128-2); _Shakespeare for All Occasions_, (1981) selected by Waldo Johns, Mongoose Publ., Yelm, WA. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Monday, 6 May 1996 16:28:14 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0324 Revenge Plays Greetings All! Gareth Euridge asked about revenge plays. Great! I've always had a soft spot for them, myself. As far as collections go, there is a Penguin set of four by John Ford, which includes ''Tis Pity She's a Whore' (a personal favourite) AND 'The Revenger's Tragedy' - which the editor is quite certain is Ford's, and not Tourner's. And thereby hangs a tale. The Penguins are (usually) not too expensive, either. But on the issue of revenge plays - have you considered including just ONE Shakespeare revemge play? Specifically, 'The Tempest'? Note, I did say revenge play, not revenge tragedy. And if you look at 'The Tempest' from just a slightly different angle, that's what it is . . . Rob O'Connor rfo601@leonard.anu.edu.au Australian National University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 11:21:16 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0346 Volpone Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0346. Monday, 6 May 1996. From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Monday, 06 May 96 09:48:00 PDT Subject: Volpone The current production of Volpone at the Shakespeare Theatre in Washington, DC, directed by Michael Kahn, is very well done. The three birds of prey are marvelous, especially Floyd King as Corbaccio. Pat Carroll does a very convincing (though perhaps too "nice") Volpone, and Nano, Androgyno, and Castrone are a lively, active part of the whole production (though some might not care for the modern setting of their songs while the rest of the play is basically "early modern"). Much attention was paid to the costumes, which are very effective. Since this play is rarely performed, and since this production is such a fine one, I would highly recommend it to SHAKSPERIANS who might be in the area. It runs at least until June 2 at the Lansburgh Theatre, on 7th Street NW just above Pennsylvania Ave. 202-393-2700 or 202-638-3863.========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 10:33:42 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0347 Re: Othello's Love Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0347. Wednesday, 8 May 1996. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 06 May 1996 12:32:51 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0342 Re: Othello's Love (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 7 May 1996 08:05:18 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0337 Re: Othello's Love (3) From: Terence Martin Date: Tuesday, 07 May 96 10:19:52 CDT Subj: Othello's Rationalizing (4) From: Kezia Vanmeter Sproat Date: Wednesday, 8 May 1996 08:58:05 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0332 Re: Othello's Love (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 06 May 1996 12:32:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0342 Re: Othello's Love Dear Pat Dunlay--I'm very interested in your comparison of Othello's "valediction" speech to Macbeth's "tomorrow and tomorrow..." speech. Isn't it possible that the reason the Macbeth speech doesn't make you as angry is because the speech is about indifference---the indifference to his wife that pretty much began from the second he became king, or maybe signs of it are evident when she faints (which I take as genuine rather than feigned)? And such indifference, alienation or coldness may be as responsible for his wife's death as Othello's blatant physical actions are. Curious what you think, and maybe you expand on why you think it's a "better play". Chris Stroffolino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 7 May 1996 08:05:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0337 Re: Othello's Love When Othello tells us that he was one who loved not wisely but too well, I believe that we are hearing the author tell us about himself, as he does in so many sililoquies, telling us things about himself that are confirmed, as is this statement, by what he shows us of himself in the sonnets, and that all his heroes, Othello, Hamlet, Lear, Romeo, Hal, Antonio, Benedick, even Macbeth and Richard III, are thinly disguised portraits of himself. Stephanie Hughes (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Martin Date: Tuesday, 07 May 96 10:19:52 CDT Subject: Othello's Rationalizing I agree with much that has been said about Othello meaning Desdemona rather than Iago. Certainly, it represents some rationalizing, but what about the commonplace warning of contemporary preachers to men not to love their wives too much lest they be led into sin, etc.? Terence Martin UM-St.Louis (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kezia Vanmeter Sproat Date: Wednesday, 8 May 1996 08:58:05 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0332 Re: Othello's Love Stephanie Hughes sees homosexuality as the only way to explain the hold Iago has on Othello. I see another, deeper hold that grips both characters, anchored in the bedrock of Venetian thought, and illustrated from the first scene to the last, to wit, misogynism. Comparison of the known source and Shakespeare's changes suggest(ed) to me (21 years ago, in my diss.) that he was very conscious of pointing up the misogynism of Venice as a force in the entire action. For me, this play is one of the greatest feminist works of art in western literature. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 10:37:49 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0348 Re: MUCH ADO explication Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0348. Wednesday, 8 May 1996. (1) From: Margaret Brockland-Nease Date: Monday, 6 May 96 12:51:53 EST Subj: MUCH ADO (2) From: Peter L. Groves Date: Tuesday, 7 May 1996 08:57:18 GMT+1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0344 Re: MUCH ADO about explication (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Brockland-Nease Date: Monday, 6 May 96 12:51:53 EST Subject: MUCH ADO Dear Chris Stroffolino, I think that language *is* the culprit in "There is not chastity enough in language Without offense to utter them." I rephrase the sentence "Language without offense [i.e., chaste language] would NOT be chaste [would not be true to itself] if these crimes were spoken of." The crimes are not the truth about Hero; thus any language that spoke of them would not BE without offense, and would not be chaste not only because it dealt with the subject of promiscuity but also because it would not be above reproach. It would damage the REPUTATION of language as a whole, making it something not to be trusted, something other than truth. In the same scene, lines 67 ("Sir, they are spoken, and these things are true"), 75 ("bid her answer truly"), and 79 ("To make you answer truly to your name") suggest the importance of the question of truth in language, and in the passage of lines 80-87, the possibility that language does not have to do what it is often assumed to do (i.e., convey truth) is raised when "Hero itself can blot out Hero's virtue," and when Hero is called "no maiden" because she cannot answer what a "maid" must, according to Claudio in line 85. The play shows that Hero IS a hero, chaste and truthful; the language spoken by her accusers is NOT "language without offense," and there is certainly "not chastity enough" in it, for there is no chastity at all in it. Margaret Brockland-Nease Department of Humanities Brunswick College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L. Groves Date: Tuesday, 7 May 1996 08:57:18 GMT+1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0344 Re: MUCH ADO about explication Florence Amit writes: > > Concerning that troublesome word "utter". When Friar Francis in his purity > of mind uses it during the wedding ceremony, saying, "charge you, on your > souls, / to utter it." , utter can have these Hebrew meanings: aut , 'sign' > and tur, 'explore' , 'on your souls explore this sign, this significance' He > also can be saying 'hamper' itar (alef, tof, resh) and 'remove' ator, (aiyn, > tet, vov, resh) " impediments". > Surely April 1 was weeks ago? Dr Peter Groves Department of English Monash University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 10:57:27 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0349 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: DISCUSS INDEX_6 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0349. Wednesday, 8 May 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, May 8, 1996 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: DISCUSS INDEX_6 After we migrated SHAKSPER from its mainframe (VM) platform at the University of Toronto to its Unix platform at Bowie State, I discovered that the Unix version did not currently support all of the functions to which we had been accustomed. Perhaps, the most lamentable loss was the Database Function. The Database Function enabled members to search past logs of discussions by key words. The upcoming revision of the LISTSERV software, due in late 1996, is supposed to port this and other functions to the Unix version. In the meantime, I would like to call attention to the manner that I recommended that members search the logs in the past before someone figured out the Database Function and explained it to me. This method involves using the Discussion Indexes. The Discussion Indexes are indexes of past discussions by year. month, and digest number (Sample below). Currently, the following indexes are available: DISCUSS INDEX_1 1990 DISCUSS INDEX_2 1991 DISCUSS INDEX_3 1992 DISCUSS INDEX_4 1993 DISCUSS INDEX_5 1994 DISCUSS INDEX_6 1995 The Index for 1997 is currently being prepared. These are large files. If you order them, you may wish to download them and search them with a word processor. To retrieve, for example, "The 1995 Discussion Index", send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET DISCUSS INDEX_6". Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, please contact the editor at or . ******************************************************************************* DISCUSS INDEX_6 January 1995 SHK 6.0001 Re: Shakespeare on CD; Books; Multimedia SHK 6.0002 Re: Dreams; Dumb Show; Education; Revenge SHK 6.0003 Q: The Cost of a Horse SHK 6.0004 Re: C-H CD-ROM; Books; Dreams SHK 6.0005 Re: Tragic "Flaw" -- Hamartia; Elizabethan Education SHK 6.0006 *MV* and Anti-Semitism (w/ DATABASE Instructions) SHK 6.0007 Re: Education; Dreams (Prepositions) SHK 6.0008 Re: Tragic Flaw -- Hamartia SHK 6.0009 Re: *MV* and Anti-Semitism SHK 6.0010 Re: Tragic Flaw; Dreams (Prep.); Elizabethan Literacy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 11:08:10 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0350 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: SHAKS HEBREW Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0350. Wednesday, 8 May 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, May 8, 1996 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: SHAKS HEBREW As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve Florence Amit's"Shakespeare's Hebrew" (SHAKS HEBREW) from the SHAKSPER Fileserver. To retrieve "Shakespeare's Hebrew", send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET SHAKS HEBREW". Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, please contact the editor at or . ******************************************************************************* Shakespeare's Hebrew Florence Amit The essay before you is in lieu of the work of two fine scholars, no longer living, Leon Kellner and his follower, S. Schoenfeld whom I quote here in regard to "The Merchant of Venice". But because German and in the case of Schoenfeld, also Hebrew, rather than English, were the languages of their scholarship, they were little noticed by the academic community. In regard to Schoenfeld, at least, I am trying to rectify this and I have commissioned an English translation, of his book, "A Hebrew Source for 'The Merchant of Venice'", with the permission of his daughter, Mrs. Hanna Shoham. This will soon be available. In the mean time I can meet any request to fax a review of Schoenfeld's then unpublished work by Yehuda T. Radday, which appeared in the 1979 "Shakespeare Survey", 32. This presentation therefore, is not conceived as comprehensive, but it is to help supply a lack. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 12:43:24 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0351 Re: Volpone; Revenge Plays; Street Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0351. Wednesday, 8 May 1996. (1) From: William L. Taylor <74642.2511@CompuServe.COM> Date: Tuesday, 07 May 96 05:57:29 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0346 Volpone (2) From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Tuesday, 07 May 96 11:51:00 0BS Subj: John Ford and Tourneur (3) From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 6 May 1996 16:23:49 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0345 Re: Street Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William L. Taylor <74642.2511@CompuServe.COM> Date: Tuesday, 07 May 96 05:57:29 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0346 Volpone I agree with most of Georgianna Ziegler's remarks about the current production of Volpone at the Shakespeare Theater in Washington, D.C., but I was not as pleased as she with Pat Carroll's performance in the title role. I thought I saw qualities in Carroll that might have made her highly effective as Falstaff in Merry Wives (for which I'm told she received excellent reviews), but being "too nice" can destroy the role of Volpone, if it means dulling the satiric edge and palliating the evil in the man. I found Carroll rather bland--not a desirable quality in Jonson! I saw a preview performance, two or three days before the opening, and the show has no doubt improved since then, but many of its problems are built into its approach to the script. As Ziegler points out, Michael Kahn has chosen to exaggerate the animal-like qualities of the characters, and like Ziegler, I found this highly successful, though some people will feel it is "over the top." My own favorites were Ted van Griethuysen as Voltore, and especially Wallace Acton as Mosca. I would never have believed that a human being could so effectively imitate the movements of a fly! Despite the animal imitations of the rest of the actors, however, I saw no attempt on Carroll's part to suggest the movements of a fox. Normally, there would be so reason why she should, but this production certainly calls for it. Ziegler did not mention that the history of the transmigration of the soul of Pythagoras in 1.2 has been cut, nor that the stress upon animality has led to a deemphasis of monstrosity and deformity. Perhaps Kahn decided to draw focus away from Androgyno because of his androgynous Volpone. The character of Sir Politic has been cut almost to nothing; the entire tortoise shell scene, and much else, is gone. Peregrine has been reduced to a foolish figure of fun, stripped of his clothes and driven from the stage in embarrassment. As a result, most of the thematic reasons for the presence of the English characters are gone. Lady Would-Be has been retained for her comic turns and her role in the trial--and for a curious bit of "comic" business in which Nano brings her to a screaming orgasm under the blankets during her conversation with Volpone. So although I agree with most of Ziegler's positive comments, my admiration for the production is qualified. I will be seeing it again May 17, and I look forward to comparing its state now with what I saw a month ago. In the preview, the performance peaked in the first trial scene and slid downhill in pace and intensity from that point on. That problem should be solved by now. Who else has seen it? What did you think? William Taylor Seattle University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Tuesday, 07 May 96 11:51:00 0BS Subject: John Ford and Tourneur Is my computer playing tricks on me, or has someone really got an edition which attributes The Revenger's Tragedy to Ford? O brave new world, which has such strange books in it...Would it be possible to obtain a precise reference, and also information on what the other texts in the volume can possibly be? (My best bet is Hamlet...) Lisa Hopkins Sheffield Hallam University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 6 May 1996 16:23:49 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0345 Re: Street Shakespeare How about involving the street audience in a game of "Name That Play"--"Alex, I can name that scene in three lines...," that sort of thing? You could begin with the easy ones, like R&J balcony, etc., and then move on to the really wicked ones, stuff from H6/2, if indeed you were interested in theatre of cruelty. This is an idea we've been batting around for a couple of years as a possibility for the RennFest up the highway from us. Feel free to take it to the streets. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company http://shenandoah.peachnet.edu/~dlyles/nctc/nctc.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 14:27:06 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0352 Re: Texts; Funeral Elegy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0352. Wednesday, 8 May 1996. (1) From: Wendy G. Thomas Date: Monday, 6 May 1996 15:37:27 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0343 Re: Texts (2) From: John Drakakis Date: Tuesday, 7 May 1996 15:08:00 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0343 Re: Texts (3) From: Richard J. Kennedy Date: Sunday, 5 May 1996 22:29:02 -0700 Subj: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wendy G. Thomas Date: Monday, 6 May 1996 15:37:27 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0343 Re: Texts At 11:08 AM 5/6/96 EDT, you wrote: >Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0343. Monday, 6 May 1996. Dear John Drakakis, > I couldn't help but notice the word you mentioned in the discussion of > "Fetishise."). You said, "Couldn't you argue from this statement to "book > fetish"? This sounds like biblioholism to me." I can't help it, I have to tell you about this great 100 year old book called "Love Affairs of a Bibliomaniac" by Eugene Field, the same man who is famous for the rhyme, "Little Boy Blue Come Blow Your Horn," and many others. Perhaps you meant "bibliomaniac" rather than "biblioholism." Whatever you meant, I just wanted to let you know of this really great book. In it, Field mentions that balding comes about from reading in bed. Perhaps this was true for our beloved Bard? Thanks for allowing me to stick my two cents in. Wendy Thomas (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Tuesday, 7 May 1996 15:08:00 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0343 Re: Texts I wonder if I can tease out Gabriel Egan's definition of "fetishism" just a little more because I think that while "to invest irrationally with significance" will do as a general rule of thumb, I'm not sure that it takes us very much further. Maybe we should go back to Marx Capital vol.3 where capital fetish is described in the following way: While interest is simply one part of the profit, i.e. the surplus value extorted from the worker by the functioning capitalist, it now appears conversely as if interest is the specific fruit of capital, the original thing, while profit, now transformed into the form of profit of enterprise, appears as a mere accessory and trimming added in the reproduction process. The fetsh character of capital and the representation of this capital fetish is now complete. In M-Mi we have thew irrational form of capital, the misrepresentation and objectification of the relations of production, in its highest power: the interest-bearing form, the simple form of capital, in which it is taken as logically anterior to its own reproduction process; the ability of money or a commodity to valorize its own value independent of reproduction- the capital mystification in the most flagrant form. ( Capital, (Harmondsworth, 1981), p.516) In the Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis Freud offers us the example of a man "quite indifferent to the genitals and other attractions of women" but whose libido became fixated on the shoe of a governess who was charged with teaching him English. (I really am not making this up!): A thin scraggy foot, like the one he had then seen belonging to to his governess, thereupon became (after a timid attempt at normal sexual activity at puberty) his only sexual object; and the man was irresistibly attracted if a foot of this kind was associated with other features besides which recalled the type of the English governess. This fixation of his libido, however, made him, not into a neurotic, but into a pervert- what we call a foot- fetishist I need not refer you further to Freud's essay on Fetishism (1927) But I think you can now see why I don't think that the term "fetishize" is what the Shakespeare Originals series is doing with quartos. I come back to the larger editorial questions, on which Gabriel Egan has a point. The term "Originals" here I take as relative, i.e. relative to the editorial accretions which have accumulated over 400 years. The terminology does, however, raise a number of questions concerning (as Bill Godshalk has indicated) the relations between compositors, printers, publishers and booksellers. It is, of course, possible to have commodities (i.e. books as commodities) BEFORE the advent of capitalism, but then the onus is upon us to try to work out how these commodities might have fitted into a late-sixteenth-century or early-seventeenth century economy. What might, say, the practice of cuncurrent printing tell us about the relationship between compositor to printer to publisher apropos the structure of the working day. Is there an exploitative relation in play here, of the sort that Marx describes in full-blown capital, or is the kind of relationship similar to the representation that we find in Simon Eyre's shop in Dekker's The Shoemakers' Holiday? Cheers John Drakakis (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J. Kennedy Date: Sunday, 5 May 1996 22:29:02 -0700 Subject: Funeral Elegy The writer of the Funeral Elegy goes on at some length about the "goodness" of his man, as these few quotations will show. "...Rememb'ring what he was, with comfort then May pattern out one truly good, by him." "...To progress out his life, I could display A good man in each part exact and force.... "...Such harmony of goodness did preserv As nature never built in better kind...." "And as much glory is it to be good For private persons, in their private home...." "So henceforth, all (great glory to his blood) Shall be but seconds to him, being good." "...his taintless goodness, his desertful merit." "...since the happiness Depends upon the goodness of theman." "But since the sum of all that can be said Can be but said that "He was good"...." Of course we must speak only the good of the dead, but the writer of the Elegy seems to be onto a theme, and if the writer was John Ford, which I believe from other evidence as well, we might expect the man to follow along these lines with some other more fully developed essay on the subject of the "good man". And so it is. In 1620, eight years after the Elegy was published, John Ford wrote "A Line of Life". It's prose, about 34 pages long, wherein the "good man" is brought from his bud into full blossom, as these quotations will show. "For to be truly good is to be great." "A public man hath not more need to be bonus civis, a good statist, than bonus vir, good in himself." "Great men are by great men--not good men by good men-- narrowly sifted...." "A good man is the last brance of resolution...." "...interposes himself to set at unity the disorders of others not so inclined to goodness...." "...then he cannot but consider that any pains which a good man undergoes for reconciliation...he may make all like unto himself, that is, good men." "This very word "good" implies a description in itself more pithy, more pathetical, than by any familiar exemplification can be made manifest: such a man...." "...yet still, as he is a good man, injuries can no more discourage him than applause can overween him." "Flattery and envy...these two miscreant monsters are against a good man...." "The good man here personated...." "In this respect even kings...justly lay a claim to the style of good men...." "...a good man, so well deserving from all grateful memory service and honour...." Truly, a "good man" is not hard to find in "A Line of Life." If anything, there's a few too many of him. In his next to last paragraph of the piece, the "good man" is mentioned 8 times. Then comes the "Corallary" to the piece. Ford mentions those who may have lost eminence, but he assures us that a "good man" will be redeemed, for honors are "but instrumental causes of virtuous effects in action." As is usual, and as is mentioned by his editors, Ford often jumps onto ideas that he never quite wrestles to the ground, such as his last words in "A Line of Life" about the good man. "To all such as do so--and all should so do that are worthy to be such--a service not to be neglected is a proper debt, especially from inferior ministers, to those whose creation hath not more given them the prerrogation of being men, than the virtuous resolution leading them by a Line of Life, hath adorned them with the just, known, and glorious titles of being good men." Well, whatever it might mean, it surely means that John Ford was much taken with the notion of the "good man", the same as the writer of the Funeral Elegy. Add this to the other several reasons that John Ford might have written the Elegy. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 14:33:30 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0353 *MND* on the Web; *Ant.* at U of Toronto Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0353. Wednesday, 8 May 1996. (1) From: Scott Crozier Date: Tuesday, 7 May 1996 14:06:10 +1000 Subj: Re: MND on the web (2) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Wednesday, 8 May 1996 11:25:15 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Notice of Performance (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Tuesday, 7 May 1996 14:06:10 +1000 Subject: Re: MND on the web As part of my research into cultural construction of productions of MND, and as an adjunct to my production of the play which is touring to Singpapore this year after a brief season in Melbourne, a colleague and I have created a web site which, we believe is at the cutting edge of internet use in theatrical studies. The address is: http://www.seranis.com.au/dream The section on the text will be of most interest to SHAKSPERians. You will need Netscape 2 to see is and it is best used on a high resolution screen. I would appreciate your comments on the site. Regards Scott Crozier (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Wednesday, 8 May 1996 11:25:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Notice of Performance For people in the Toronto area: the PLS, the University of Toronto's medieval and renaissance acting troupe, is performing *Antony and Cleopatra* at the Helen Gardiner Phelan Theatre (formerly the UC Playhouse) at 79A St George Street. The show opened May 1 and will be playing Wednesday through Saturday evenings (8 pm) and Sunday pay-what-you-can matinees (2 pm) until May 19. The text is based on the first folio, and the performance is energetic and often enlightening. Tickets: regular, $15, student/senior, $8. Reservations: 978-5096. Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L9 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 14:40:49 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0354 Qs: Malvolio and Hercules; Water Damage; Miss-Lineation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0354. Wednesday, 8 May 1996. (1) From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Tuesday, 7 May 1996 15:32:14 +0200 Subj: Malvolio and Hercules. A query (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 07 May 1996 21:47:18 -0500 (EST) Subj: Water Damaged Norton Folio (3) From: Dom Saliani Date: Wednesday, 08 May 1996 09:33:34 -0700 (MST) Subj: Miss-Lineation (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Tuesday, 7 May 1996 15:32:14 +0200 Subject: Malvolio and Hercules. A query I wish to submit a query on behalf of a colleague who is not (yet) a member of this List. He has noticed that there are curious paralles between _Twelfth Night_ II.v.153 (Arden) -- "Remember who commended thy yellow stockings, and wished to see thee ever cross-gartered" -- and Seneca's _Phaedra_ 320-321 "crura distincto religavit auro / luteo plantas cohibente socco". Apart from the strange 'coincidence' of the yellow stockings and the crossed-over garters, the whole situation -- he says -- seems to suggest an analogy between Hercules and Malvolio, between the former's passion for the Lydian queen Omphale and the latter's love for Countess Olivia. In both cases love is an uncontrollable force, it's a powerful agent whose victims are driven to wild and foolish actions. Does anyone know of any editors or critics who point out this analogy or mention Seneca in connection with "The Fortunate-Unhappy"'s letter? Please feel free to respond directly to me if you prefer -- and thank you in advance. Marcello Cappuzzo University of Palermo P.S. It would be interesting to know how John Studley rendered Seneca's lines quoted above in his 1581 translation of the play (in Th. Newton's _Tenne Tragedies_, which unfortunately is not available either to my Roman friend or to me). (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 07 May 1996 21:47:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Water Damaged Norton Folio I realize that this request is only tangentially Shakespearean, but my office copy of the Norton Folio was soaked with water over the weekend -- the result of a student prank. I, of course, have read that freeze-drying a water damaged book is the appropriate technique, and my copy of the Folio is now in my freezer. But what do I do now? Just wait? Is anyone on this list familiar with freeze-drying books or know someone who is? Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dom Saliani Date: Wednesday, 08 May 1996 09:33:34 -0700 (MST) Subject: Miss-Lineation Dear SHAKSPERians: I need help. In examining *Macbeth* I have noticed that most modern editions of the play differ greatly from the Folio edition in terms of lineation. It seems that what these modern editors have done is re- lineated so that the speeches conform more closely to the iambic pentameter expectation. Take for example: FIRST FOLIO - BANQUO: Hold, take my Sword; There's Husbandry in Heaven, Their candles are all out : take thee that too. A heavy Summons lyes like Lead upon me, And yet I would not sleepe; Merciful Powers, restraine in me the cursed thoughts That Nature gives way to in repose. *Enter Macbeth, and a Servant with a Torch. Give me my Sword : who's there? MODERN EDITION (New Folger) - BANQUO: Hold, take my Sword. There's husbandry in heaven, Their candles are all out. Take thee that too. A heavy Summons lyes like Lead upon me, And yet I would not sleepe. Merciful powers, restraine in me the cursed thoughts that nature Gives way to in repose. *Enter Macbeth, and a Servant with a torch.* Give me my Sword -- Who's there? I think the Folger is conventional in its treatment of the plays in that they do not hesitate to relineate to approach the iambic pentameter and they space subsequent lines to create the appearance that they go together to complete the iambic pentameter mold. What I mean by this last point can be shown in the following from *Hamlet*: HORATIO: Nay, very pale. HAMLET: And fix'd his eyes upon you? HORATIO: Most constantly. HAMLET: I would I had been there. HORATIO: It would have much amaz'd you. HAMLET: Very like. Stayed it long? Such spacing does not occur in any of the quartos or Folios. My query: When did this practice of relineation begin? What was the rationale? How is this practice regarded by the professional community? And most importantly: Is it necessary? I find, especially in *Macbeth* that the First Folio reads far better in the original lineation than in the relineated modern editions. As a matter of fact, the Folio reading is clearer and reads as being more modern than the relineated texts that create more archaic enjambments for the sake of an artificially produced iambic pentameter effect. I read somewhere (I think the Arden edition) that *Macbeth* is the "worst mislineated text of all. This would mean that it is the most relineated. Please help. If you know of any sources that I can refer to that discuss this matter, I would be most appreciative. I am also most interested in your opinions on the matter. Dom Saliani < dsaliani@cbe.ab.ca > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 06:59:58 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0355 Re: MUCH ADO Explication Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0355. Saturday, 11 May 1996. (1) From: Keith Richards Date: Wednesday, 08 May 1996 12:52:58 -0700 Subj: Much Ado (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 08 May 1996 15:46:45 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0348 Re: MUCH ADO explication (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith Richards Date: Wednesday, 08 May 1996 12:52:58 -0700 Subject: Much Ado On Tuesday April 8th, P. Groves wrote, in response to F. Amit's Hebrewization of _Much Ado_ , that "surely April 1st was weeks ago?" I think that this is a poorly thought out and, frankly, insulting response. While I sometimes think that Professor Amit goes over the top, her comments are always suggestive, and she has always responded to my enquiries to her with a great deal of professionalism and willingness to become involved in constructive debate. I have at times been guilty of assaulting members of this list with underformulated replies and polemics, but always privately (off the list). The fact is, (as I have learned from painful experience), posts like this make the sender, rather than the recipient of the criticism, look bad. If there is a constructive argument to be made against F. Amit's post (which I think there may be) then it should be made publicly. While I know that some listmembers disagree with me on this point, replies of Peter Grove's nature should be sent privately. Keith Richards (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 08 May 1996 15:46:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0348 Re: MUCH ADO explication Though I agree with Bill Godshalk, Jeff Myers and Joseph Lockett's explanations of the Don John line in question (that DJ is both pointing out the inadequacy of euphamisms as well as slyly absolving himself from blame and further interrogation here), I believe that this reading is only good on the "plot" or "story" level of the play (the level at which such "close readings" as Harry Berger would engage in would be condemned as too "ironic" by those he calls "the new histrionicists"). Now, certain- ly Don John should be PLAYED (acted) as Joseph Lockett suggests, but on another level, I'd like to consider the way the language here exceeds the plot or story level. On this point, I find Margaret Brockland-Nease's comments helpful. If, as Myers writes, Don John "is lamenting the absence of euphamisms", he's also calling attention to the euphemism that have been used throughout the play (by Claudio, Don Pedro and Leonato), and especially in this scene, to reductively characterize Hero, whether she's seen as "chaste" or not. On this level Don John's function (for US), is as much as a minor character exposing (to us) the CRIME of Don Pedro and Claudio as much as he is a "villain" on a plot level. In an attempt to make this clearer, I want to take another look at the scene (4.1) up to this point. The scene begins with Leonato saying to the Friar "BE BRIEF, ONLY TO THE PLAIN FORM OF MARRIAGE". Aside from showing Leonato's HASTE (which I think is at least as much to blame for the failure of the arrest of Borachio to come to light in the previous scene as Dogberry's alleged bumbling), I would underscore the words "PLAIN FORM" here. The valuing of "plain form" (whether of marriage or or language) is something this scene turns on its head. Then there's language confusion over the friar's use of words. Benedick, in line 20, comments specifically on CLAUDIO's new use of language (interjections), a use that had been alien to Claudio up to this point. Claudio's CYNICAL use of the language he earlier in the play employed unironically, and unselfreflectively, then occurs (contrast the obviously cynical use of "RICH AND PRECIOUS GIFT" with "CAN THE WORLD BUY SUCH A JEWEL" in act 1) and accelerates the process. Then he says "I NEVER TEMPTED HER WITH WORD TOO LARGE". And Hero's response, IS MY LORD WELL THAT HE DOTH SPEAK SO WIDE", also deals with the idea of language bursting the bounds of "chastity" (enforced chastity?). Earlier in the play, we were told about how an ILL WORD can POSION LIKING. This is exactly what is happening in this scene. It even seems that this poison becomes NECESSARY for Claudio (and maybe Hero) to drive his liking to the name of love. What is revealed here seems to be that his language had been TOO CHASTE throughout, and the violence here unleashed, becomes the desperate measures needed in such a situation, and mindset as Claudio's, and also serves to show why Beatrice and benedick's attitude may be ultimately more balanced. By the end of the play Claudio is not "redeemed" per se, but he does undergo a change. In fact, where he ends is quite similar to where Benedick STARTED. Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 07:07:34 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0356 Re: Othello and Macbeth Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0356. Saturday, 11 May 1996. (1) From: Pat Dunlay Date: Wednesday, 08 May 1996 14:44:39 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0347 Re: Othello's Love (2) From: Elizabeth M. Harvey Date: Wednesday, 8 May 1996 19:47:27 -0300 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0347 Re: Othello's Love (3) From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@CompuServe.COM> Date: Friday, 10 May 1996 05:16:11 -0400 Subj: Lady Macbeth's faint (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Dunlay Date: Wednesday, 08 May 1996 14:44:39 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0347 Re: Othello's Love In reply to Chris Stroffolino on Othello and Macbeth, and please excuse any inaccuracy as I don't have either text in front of me, I think of Macbeth's "Tomorrow" speech as despairing, rather than indifference. I am moved by his view of life as "a brief candle", "signifying nothing" as he faces death. I haven't seen his relationship to Lady Macbeth deteriorate to indifference either, at least not so early as Act II. At the banquet scene, he seems still very dependant upon her when he is so shaken by Banquo's ghost. I also lean toward her fainting as genuine, but that's another discussion. Perhaps I should apologize for the "better play" remark; I just find Othello more melodrama in parts and think that Macbeth addresses questions with more conscious ambiguity, like life, not so black and white (and excuse the pun). But that's clearly a personal preference on my part and I teach Othello now and not Macbeth, so what does that say? Pat Dunlay (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth M. Harvey Date: Wednesday, 8 May 1996 19:47:27 -0300 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0347 Re: Othello's Love I can't help but comment on Chris Stroffolino's reference to Macbeth's "Tomorrow" speech as an example of Macbeth's indifference. It seems to me that that particular speech expresses a sense of futility and depression that speaks so clearly and strongly that it stands out even among Shakespeare's lines....Surely Macbeth is acknowledging the empty result of it all - reminiscent of "Nought's had, all's spent" - Surely he is far from indifferent to her death - or his own (impending)... Elizabeth M. Harvey (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@CompuServe.COM> Date: Friday, 10 May 1996 05:16:11 -0400 Subject: Lady Macbeth's faint Chris Stroffolino takes it that Lady Macbeth genuinely does faint. How does the actor indicate this? Why isn't it that the more convincing the feigned faint, the greater Lady Macbeth's duplicity? Give me Stephanie Hughes, whose uncomplicated belief that all the Bard's heroes are thinly (yes, thinly) disguised portraits of himself warmed the cockles of this old heart. T. Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 07:11:19 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0357 Announcement: EMLS 2.1 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0357. Saturday, 11 May 1996. From: Joanne Woolway Date: Wednesday, 8 May 1996 23:13:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: Announcement: EMLS 2.1 ----------------------- Please cross-post ----------------------- Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce the next issue and the beginning of a new volume of Early Modern Literary Studies. Our table of contents is below; as you'll see this is an "all Shakespeare" issue which we hope will generate much comment through our Readers' Forum. You'll also see that we have a new format, an expanded electronic resources section, and many more reviews. EMLS can be found at http://unixg.ubc.ca:7001/0/e-sources/emls/emlshome.html and at our Oxford mirror site http://sable.ox.ac.uk/~emls/emlshome.html The journal is also available via e-mail in an ASCII version. To subscribe, please send a message to Subscribe_EMLS@arts.ubc.ca Comments are always welcome; the editors can be contacted at emls@arts.ubc.ca or emls@sable.ox.ac.uk Joanne Woolway Associate Editor, EMLS --------------------------- Early Modern Literary Studies 2.1 (April 1996): Contents Foreword: *Critical Shakespeare. Joanne Woolway, Oriel College, Oxford. Articles: *Personations: The Taming of the Shrew and the Limits of Theoretical Criticism. Paul Yachnin, University of British Columbia. *The Madness of Syracusan Antipholus. Robert Viking O'Brien, California State University, Chico. *"The price of one fair word": Negotiating Names in Coriolanus. David Lucking, University of Lecce, Italy. *Certain Speculations on Hamlet, the Calendar, and Martin Luther. Steve Sohmer. Note: *Blending Popular Culture and Religious Instruction: Herbert's Outlandish Proverbs. Paul Moon, Auckland Institute of Technology, NZ. Reviews: *Eric S. Mallin. Inscribing the Time: Shakespeare and the End of Elizabethan England. Berkeley: U of California P, 1995. Tony Dawson, University of British Columbia. *The Reign of Elizabeth I: Court and Culture in the Last Decade. Ed. John Guy. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. Henry VIII in History, Historiography and Literature. Ed. Uwe Baumann. Bern: Peter Lang, 1992. Steven Gunn, Merton College, Oxford. *Renaissance Culture in Context: Theory and Practice. Eds. Jean R. Brink and William F. Gentrup. Aldershot: Scholar P; Brookfield, Vt: Ashgate Publishing Company, 1993. A.W. Johnson, Abo Akademi University, Finland. *John Donne. Pseudo-Martyr. Ed. Anthony Raspa. Montreal: McGill-Queen's UP, 1993. Dennis Flynn. John Donne and the Ancient Catholic Nobility. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1995. Elizabeth Hodgson, University of British Columbia. *William M. Hamlin. The Image of America in Montaigne, Spenser, and Shakespeare: Renaissance Ethnography and Literary Reflection. New York: St. Martin's P, 1995. Donna C. Woodford, Washington University at St Louis. *Michael Murrin. History and Warfare in Renaissance Epic. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1995. James Loxley, University of Leeds. *Richard Strier. Resistant Structures: Particularity, Radicalism, and Renaissance Texts. Berkeley: U of California P, 1995. Mark Robson, University of Leeds. *Jonathan Sawday. The Body Emblazoned: Dissection and the Human Body in Renaissance Culture. London: Routledge, 1995. Mary Bly, Washington University at St Louis. *English Verse Drama: The Full-Text Database. Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey, 1995. David L. Gants, University of Virginia. *"That nobility and sweet discourse": Review of the SHAKSPER Listserv Discussion Group. Sean Lawrence, University of British Columbia. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 07:22:53 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0358 Re: Funeral Elegy and Stylometry Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0358. Saturday, 11 May 1996. (1) From: Leo Daugherty Date: Thursday, 9 May 1996 00:07:23 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0352 Re: Texts; Funeral Elegy (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 8 May 1996 19:20:48 -0700 Subj: Funeral Elegy (3) From: Jonathan Hope Date: Friday, 10 May 1996 15:46:57 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0335 Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leo Daugherty Date: Thursday, 9 May 1996 00:07:23 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0352 Re: Texts; Funeral Elegy Speaking as someone who believes (and who has said here on SHAKSPER) that Shakespeare wrote FUNERAL ELEGY, and also as someone who has studied Ford's LINE OF LIFE (and funeral elegy on Charles Blount/Mountjoy), I would caution Richard Kennedy about concluding too much from the Shakespearean allusions/ echoes in Ford's work. For example, using Mr. Kennedy's logic, we should probably conclude the Ford also wrote Shakespeare's Sonnet 16 ("So should the lines of life that life repair . . ."), giving the phrase a spin not even brought out by Empson's famous polysemic analysis (in SEVEN TYPES OF AMBIGUITY). The truth is that John Ford knew Will Peter and was (self-evidently, judging from his work as a whole) one of the first great Shakespeare fans. It is also true that we have yet more to learn from Ford about Shakespeare, and some of it from THE LINE OF LIFE, which has been barely studied at all. (I'm working on it, but it's slow work.) Leo Daugherty (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 8 May 1996 19:20:48 -0700 Subject: Funeral Elegy One of Ford's biographers, M. Joan Sargeant ("John Ford" NY, (1966) doesn't much care for "Fame's Memorial" (1606), finding it "very wearisome", and in a "highly artificial style". Such a critical judgment applies very well to the "Funeral Elegy"(1612), if we take John Ford to be the poet of that as well. Sargeant also says that Ford's "Christ's Bloody Sweat" (1613), "is of no great value, but it is better than "Fames Memorial", though partly in the same style." All three poems are of a bunch, I think, John Ford when he was 20 (FM), then 26 (FE) and a year later (CBS). The last poem matches many lines with the Elegy, and in all three there is a posing style, a lack of poetry, and the attitude of John Ford quipped upon by a contemporary: "Deep in a dump John Forde alone was got, With folded arms and melancholy hat...." (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Hope Date: Friday, 10 May 1996 15:46:57 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0335 Funeral Elegy Bill Godshalk asked me to be a bit more explicit about my reasons for being sceptical of 'absolute' claims for authorship studies. I'm very happy to do this - and I don't in the least take it as a hostile question. One of the reasons authorship work on Shakespeare has such a dismal record is a failure to engage with methodology, and an obsession with headline-grabbing results. I wish people cared less about who wrote what, and more about how to find out who wrote what (I think Foster's book is exemplary on this level). To put it simply, I think that it is possible, for some texts, to prove that author X could not have written the text. I do not, however, think that it is ever possible to prove that author Y *DID* write the text. This follows from my understanding of how hypotheses are tested in science (and as far as I am concerned, authorship studies are, or ought to be, science). In science you never prove that a hypothesis is 'true' by experiment: you either show that it is false; or show that your results would not falsify it. In other words, hypotheses are either falsified, or they live to be tested another day - when they could possibly be falsified, or replaced by another more robust hypothesis. To transfer this to authorship: Edward III is an anonymous text. I hypothesise that the text was written by Shakespeare. I test this hypothesis by comparing Shakespeare's use of the auxiliary verb 'do' in his uncontested works with the usage of the author(s) of Edward III. There are two possible outcomes: 1. The usage of auxiliary 'do' in Edward III is unlike that found in any play by Shakespeare. The hypothesis is falsified and I conclude that Shakespeare did not write Edward III. 2. The usage of auxiliary 'do' in Edward III is like that found in Shakespeare's plays. In this case the hypothesis is not falsified, and I conclude that Shakespeare *could* have written Edward III. It seems to me that much stylometry slides over the modals that ought to accompany unfalsified hypotheses. Of course, if we test lots of hypotheses about different linguistic features, and none are falsified, then we may conclude that, of the names we know about, Shakespeare is the *best* candidate for authorship - but this in not the same thing as *proving* that Shakespeare did, in fact, write a play. I may be misrepresenting science and stylometry here, but these are the principles I use in my own work. Jonathan Hope Middlesex University ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 07:29:51 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0359 Re: Mislineation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0359. Saturday, 11 May 1996. (1) From: Greg Grainger Date: Wednesday, 8 May 1996 20:29:55 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0354: Miss-Lineation (2) From: Kurt Daw Date: Thursday, 9 May 1996 09:49:00 -0500 Subj: Re: Mislineation (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Greg Grainger Date: Wednesday, 8 May 1996 20:29:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0354: Miss-Lineation Dom Saliani wrote: > I need help. In examining *Macbeth* I have noticed that most modern > editions of the play differ greatly from the Folio edition in terms of > lineation. It seems that what these modern editors have done is re- > lineated so that the speeches conform more closely to the iambic > pentameter expectation. > My query: When did this practice of relineation begin? > What was the rationale? > How is this practice regarded by the professional community? I can't help you with your first question, but as to the second two, and under the heading of anecdotal sources: an actor friend of mine once told me that the practice comes from modern editors forgetting that these are texts that are made to be performed. We were discussing punctuation, but I think the principle is the same: the original punctuation was designed for people to speak aloud, and allowed for pauses to draw breath at more or less 'natural' intervals. In that segment of the professonal community, at least, the practice is regarded with contempt. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Don Saliani concerning *Macbeth* relineation >My query: When did this practice of relineation begin? > What was the rationale? > How is this practice regarded by the professional community? Reliniation has been a part of the editorial process almost from the beginning. The rationale is, for the most part, a belief that the lineation of the Folio (of *Macbeth,* at least) does not reflect the manuscript from which it was printed but are related to printer's concerns. The example you give of Banquo's line is a case where looking at the Folio (I'm consulting a facsimile this morning) will quickly reveal the space problem which led to the dubious arrangement of the lines. An even clearer example happens at Norton TLN 650. Here the last two words of Lady Macbeth's previous verse line: "What hath quench'd them, hath given me fire. Hearke, peace:," because of obvious crowding problems, are turned under and included as the first two words of the next line. This now creates another space problem in the next physical line, so only part of the next pentameter is printed on that line. The rest is turned under, continuing the problem. The lines go on in mislineated form for another six lines in the Folio until the space problem can be resolved at Macbeth's entrance. It is worth remembering that these texts were originally conceived in form to be *heard,* not seen. If well spoken, the pentameter form of the verse will come clear to the ear no matter how it is arranged on the page. Editorial rearrangement of the lines is sometimes justified as putting lines back into their "original" form, making it easier for a modern reader to *see* what a Jacobean listener would have *heard.* The jarring rhythms of the Folio lineation are certainly provocative, but I understand the general concensus leans toward thinking these are accidents of printing rather than effects intentionally created by Shakespeare. You can find a much better (and wittier) discussion of some of the contemporary thinking about lineation (along with much else) contained within Gary Taylor's essay "Revising Shakespeare," *TEXT* 3 (1987), pp. 285-304. Kurt Daw Director of Theater Programs Kennesaw State College ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 07:34:03 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0360 Re: Malvolio and Hercules Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0360. Saturday, 11 May 1996. (1) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 8 May 1996 17:36:39 -0700 Subj: Malvolio (2) From: David McPherson Date: Friday, 10 May 1996 09:16:04 -0600 (MDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0354 Qs: Malvolio and Hercules (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 8 May 1996 17:36:39 -0700 Subject: Malvolio We played the cross-gartered yellow stocking Malavolio as if he had the legs of a rooster, and it looks much like, and he strutted cock-like before Olivia, elbows out, and the audience took to the foolishness right away, lots of fun. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David McPherson Date: Friday, 10 May 1996 09:16:04 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0354 Qs: Malvolio and Hercules I published a note making that very argument about Malvolio and Hercules; see _Notes and Queries_, n.s. 20 (1973), 135-36. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 07:37:53 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0361 Re: Texts; Hamlet Q1 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0361. Saturday, 11 May 1996. (1) From: John Drakakis Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 08:04:00 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0352 Re: Texts (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 8 May 1996 18:40:27 -0700 Subj: Hamlet Q1 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 08:04:00 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0352 Re: Texts For Wendy Thomas, Thanks for the reference but I think it was Gabriel Egan not me who used the term "biblioholism". John Drakakis (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 8 May 1996 18:40:27 -0700 Subject: Hamlet Q1 Those who are interested in the 1603 edition might know of Thomas Clayton's book, "The 'Hamlet' First Published: Origins, Form, and Intertextualities." 1992. Another fine book is George Ian Duthie's "The 'Bad' Quarto of Hamlet". Cambridge, 1941. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 07:40:15 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0362 Memorial Tree Planting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0362. Saturday, 11 May 1996. From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Friday, 10 May 96 13:40:00 PDT Subject: Memorial Tree Planting The Center for Renaissance and Baroque Studies at the University of Maryland has asked us to announce that there will be a Memorial Tree Planting in memory of Sam Schoenbaum at the College Park Campus, 4 PM, May 16, 1996. It will take place in front of Taliaferro Hall, followed by a reception in Francis Scott Key Hall, Suite 1102. For directions or for further information contact Talaya Grimes or Dr. Susan Jenson at tg56@umail.umd.edu. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 11:43:21 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0363 Re: Mislineation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0363. Monday, 13 May 1996. (1) From: Jack Lynch Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 10:17:40 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0359 Re: Mislineation (2) From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 11:23:46 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0359 Re: Mislineation (3) From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 11:44:11 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0359 Re: Mislineation (4) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 19:20:51 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0354 Miss-Lineation (5) From: David Lindley Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 19:40:40 GMT Subj: Lineation (6) From: William Proctor Williams Date: Saturday, 11 May 96 14:12 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0359 Re: Mislineation (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Lynch Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 10:17:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0359 Re: Mislineation DS: When did this practice of relineation begin? What was the rationale? KD: Relineation has been a part of the editorial process almost from the beginning. Depends, of course, on what exactly you mean by "from the beginning." The seventeenth century folios did some minor twiddling with lineation, and I think Rowe did a little more, but the first to apply a systematic approach to lineation and verse regularity was Pope. Pope treated Shakespeare's texts very much as printed works, not works for the stage, and was out to "fix" all the errors contained in the seventeenth-century editions (at least the few he consulted). -- Jack Lynch; jlynch@english.upenn.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 11:23:46 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0359 Re: Mislineation Greg Grainger tells us that the practice of lineation as a guide to the speaking actor is `regarded with contempt' and if he means that the acting profession regards it so, he is, unfortunately, largely correct. This innocence is the result of `researching' roles and looking so deep into one's own spirit that the emotional shapes of the characters in the text are disregarded in favour psychological insights irrelevant to the play and sometimes destructive of the role. It shows itself mainly in the naivete that considers lines that do not end a sentence to be obvious enjambments-- a belief that produces prose. Harry Hill Montreal (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 11:44:11 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0359 Re: Mislineation If actors think the line do briefly end with `With', they're right but often make the sad Mistake of reading thus, in prose, which spoils Th'effect of attitude with words like `sad' And `spoils', deliv'ring as they do a fine Contempt for the contempt that's rightly meant. If actors think the line do briefly end with `with', they're right, but often make the sad mistake of reading thus, in prose, which spoils th'effect of *attitude* with words like `sad' and `spoils', deliv'ring as they do a fine contempt for the contempt that's rightly meant. Lineated in elementary iambic pentameter as in the first example, the actor is given a short pause before the 2nd.line's `with', the omission of which emphasis is `sad'; the second example is grammatically accessibile but contains no attitude of the person speaking it and requires that mean technique of italics to deliver the main argument. If Hamlet, for instance, were acting in prose, as he sometimes is, he wonders "Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outgrageous fortune", which quite obliterates the idea that nobility resides in the minds rather than in behaviour. "Mind" must linger in the theatre's air for a moment for this to occur to the auditor. Later in his ponderings, he asks ...and by `to sleep' we say we end The heartache..... Many an unpractised actor will enjamb thus: ...and by a sleep to say we end the heartache. He is missing entirely the resonances of `end'. I misquoted this, as I am transcribing from memory. Not much bloody wobder we have corrupt performances of corrupt texts. Harry Hill (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 19:20:51 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0354 Miss-Lineation Dom Saliani's comments and queries about editorial restoration of lineation in Macbeth engage with some concerns aired in the 'Texts' thread. If Shakespeare's preference in such matters can be convincingly shown then some editors will claim the right to restore what the dramatist would have prefered. But in the case of Macbeth, and also Timon of Athens and Measure for Measure, the texts are currently being edited for the Oxford Complete Works of Middleton and by some of the same editors who worked on the Oxford Shakespeare. So, using the principle of authorial preference, the same text (eg F1 Macbeth) will be re-edited using a new set of presumed preferences. This affects not only lineation (because Middleton wouldn't have minded 'broken' metre as much as Shakespeare would) but also punctuation and spelling. Does this point up the absurdity of the Oxford method and validate the Shakespearean Originals' concern to "throw a cordon around" the early printed text? Or does it show that the Oxford editors interfere with the early printed text in a methodical way based on assumptions about authorship which, if not shared by all, are at least recoverable. Since one cannot actually cordon texts (all transmission being, necessarily, mediation) isn't explained interference better than tacit interference? Gabriel Egan (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 19:40:40 GMT Subject: Lineation Dom Saliani's enquiry about lineation connects with other recent discussion about editions and texts on the list. There can be no doubt that the lineation of the Folio reflects a mixture of various kinds of intervention by scribes and compositors, some for purely practical reasons (to do with casting-off of copy necessitating compressing or expanding material to fit a page), others with a quasi-editorial purpose (Ralph Crane certainly seems to have consciously attempted to 'tidy up' the texts he copied in a number of ways, for example). There are interesting discussions of the problems in Paul Werstine's article: 'Line Division in Shakespeare's Dramatic Verse: An Editorial Problem', *Analytical and Enumerative Bibliography*, 8 (1984), 73 - 125, and in Ernst Honigmann's very recent study, *The Texts of Othello and Shakespearean Revision* (London and NY: Routledge, 1996) - amongst many others. What an editor does about lineation, however, is a reflection of his or her underlying principles and sense of what the editorial task involves. There seem to me two fundamental questions. First, whilst study of scribal and printing practices can suggest something of the reasons why 'unsatisfactory' line-arrangement is to be found in the printed texts, for an editor to attempt to regularise lineation (s)he must believe that the author originally intended to write regular pentameters, and that such an intention has been occluded in the processes of textual transmission. (It's a belief that eighteenth-century editors had no difficulty with - as the number of emendations they made in order to ensure metrical regularity clearly attest.) But, secondly, an editorial decision to relineate is founded upon a belief that the visual appearance of the page should be designed to indicate that metrical regularity to the modern reader. (And this affects not just lineation, but the indication of elision.) There is (perhaps) some evidence that Shakespeare's own manuscripts may not have been particularly scrupulous in this regard - which might suggest that such tidying-up is inappropriate. The questions, then, concern both the propriety of an act of 'recovery', and also the propriety of 're-presenting' a Renaissance text in a modernised edition. Dom Saliani's sense that F lineation 'reads' better has a good deal to do with the way our perception of poetry has been shaped by the typography of 'free verse', and our delivery of the Shakespearean text in the theatre has shifted, for better or worse, away from a privileging of its 'poetic' qualities. But to suggest that the Folio lineation (or punctuation for that matter) is somehow closer to a real theatrical text is, I'm afraid, just to misunderstand the nature of the copy that the Folio printers had and the liberties they (and scribes) were prepared to take with it. To oversimplify my own position (as someone actively engaged in the business of editing at the moment): I believe that Shakespeare did write in pentameters; that the job of an editor is inevitably and properly to act upon the hypotheses they make about the processes of textual transmission in their work of re-presentation, including those which affect lineation; that a modernised text, since it always involves an act of translation, should not baulk at translating the visual cues of lineation as much as it does those of spelling and punctuation, and that in an age when all too many readers read with the eye but not the ear such an effort is not insignificant; but (of course) that any modernised text should be specific and detailed about the kinds of intervention it has made. No doubt many will disagree? David Lindley University of Leeds (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Proctor Williams Date: Saturday, 11 May 96 14:12 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0359 Re: Mislineation Dom Saliani can get an answer to his questions, and much more, from Paul Werstine's "Line Division in Shakespeare's Dramatic Verse: An Editorial Problem" in +Analytical and Enumerative Bibliography+ 8 (1984), 73-125. William Proctor Williams ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 11:59:17 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0364 Announcement: TEACHING SHAKESPEARE THROUGH PERFORMANCE Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0364. Monday, 13 May 1996. From: Milla Riggio Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 10:00:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Announcement: TEACHING SHAKESPEARE THROUGH PERFORMANCE Dear Fellow Shakespereans: In the upcoming book on TEACHING SHAKESPEARE THROUGH PERFORMANCE, which I am editing, Michael Mullin is giving SHAKSPER a nice plug. Now, I'd like to offer you all a last chance to get your plugs and preferences into the book. We are sending the ms. in to MLA within the next two weeks. The last item on the agenda is to group, cite, and annotate a list of good texts and good works to use in courses teaching Shakespeare through Performance. Can you speak up for the textual editions which you prefer, and say why, and can you cite the secondary resources and books which you find most helpful in class? This will be a HUGE service to me and to your fellow teachers. And this is truly the last call. Quick responses, either private or public, would be greatly appreciated If you are replying to me privately, please use the following address rather than the one listed on the send line above: Milla.Riggio@mail.trincoll.edu This lengthy project is almost done. We'd love your help once more! Thanks, Milla Riggio ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 12:08:41 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0365 Re: Hamlet Q1 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0365. Monday, 13 May 1996. (1) From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 11:17:03 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0361 Re: Hamlet Q1 (2) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Sunday, 12 May 1996 11:12:52 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0361 Re: Hamlet Q1 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 11:17:03 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0361 Re: Hamlet Q1 G.I Duthie, author of "The `Bad' Quarto of Hamlet", was my Shakespeare professor at Aberdeen; in his narrow, clipped, only slightly North-East-tinged cadences, he would read from *Hamlet* rather romantically, making it sound a bit like Wordsworth on an especially philosophical day. The effect was always special, as he was embarrassed to read [Dover Wilson had told him he had a tin ear] and never took the Woodbine from his lips, not even to flick the ash which would drop on the lapels of his academic gown to be smudged by the hand that wasn't holding the text. We were unfortunate witnesses to the beginnings of his breakdown, which involved his feeling that he was casting his pearls before swine; lectures were prepared with much fine sherry, so he was seldom subdued. A brilliant man, whose way of hammering home gently the concept of fivine right was to start his *Henry IV* class with the sentence, "Ladies and gentlemen: there is a BAD king ruling England". Harry Hill Montreal (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Sunday, 12 May 1996 11:12:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0361 Re: Hamlet Q1 Those interested in Q1 will want to get Kathleen Irace's well-thought out edition of Q1 (forthcoming from Cambridge UP). Irace also has an essay in Clayton's book. Bernice W. Kliman ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 12:19:01 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0366 Re: Hercules; L. Macbeth; Othello's Love; ADO Explication Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0366. Monday, 13 May 1996. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 12:41:50 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0360 Re: Malvolio and Hercules (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 13:50:18 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0356 Re: Othello and Macbeth (3) From: Fumiyuki Narushima Date: Monday, 13 May 96 15:47:32 +0900 Subj: SHK 7.0330 Othello's Love (4) From: Jeff Myers Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 15:15:14 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0355 Re: MUCH ADO Explication (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 12:41:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0360 Re: Malvolio and Hercules There was a book (i think from the 50's) called something like "THE HERCULEAN HERO IN SHAKESPEARE". Does anybody know who wrote it? For some reason, Eugene Waith seems to come to mind, but I don't think that's right. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 13:50:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0356 Re: Othello and Macbeth Pat Dunlay--If you agree that Lady Macbeth's faint is genuine rather than feigned (in terms of character "psychology" and plausibility rather than on the level Terence Hawkes speaks of), I am curious why you think so? Especially if you deny the increasing estrangement of her from her husband in the second half of the play. Though I will not argue that Macbeth does not lean on her in the banquet scene, in so many other ways the increasing estrangement is suggested. Earlier in the play they had been "partners" but as he becomes king, he begins to act without consulting her (I believe the admission that he killed the servants he allegedly killed Duncan is the first instance of this and may explain her faint.....[typo above I mean "who killed D.."] and this continues. Also her "thane of fife he had a wife song". The estrangement between them escalates. One may be moved by his vision of life as a brief candle and claim that there is despair there, but the despair does not seem to be for Lady Macbeth. "She should have died hereafter" strikes me as if he's almost BLAMING her, and whether it's more noble than "I will kill thee and love thee after" seems highly questionable. The "tomorrow" Macbeth so banked on never comes, CAN never come, just like Othello's. Chris S. P.S. Or, if I understand Mr. Hawkes argument correctly, not only is the feigning feigned but all the deaths are feigned too. Thus the "death" becomes a trope or a play-death and our attention should be directed less to the plot than to the language which exceeds it and the deaths in the tragedies become symbols for something else (Montaigne would say "sleep"; others would say "sex"). But this is another discussion. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fumiyuki Narushima Date: Monday, 13 May 96 15:47:32 +0900 Subject: SHK 7.0330 Othello's Love Recently, I read William Van Watson's "Shakespeare, Zeffirelli, and the Homosexuall Gaze" in Deborah E. Barker and Ivo Kamps, eds., *Shakespeare and Gender* (London 1995). Watson deals with Zeffirelli's film of *Othello* in which Iago's homosexual relation with Cassio is visually accentuated. Fumiyuki Narushima, Kitami Institute of Technology (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 15:15:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0355 Re: MUCH ADO Explication > On Tuesday April 8th, P. Groves wrote, in response to F. Amit's Hebrewization > of _Much Ado_ , that "surely April 1st was weeks ago?" Does anyone else, as Keith Richards implies, associate the above response with assault? I thought Peter Groves was just being playful. A real assault is something like Gore Vidal's evisceration of John Updike in the TLS. Let's not be too sensitive, lest we take all the enjoyment from life. "For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbors and laugh at them in our turn?" Jeff Myers ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 12:24:07 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0367 Re: Texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0367. Monday, 13 May 1996. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 19:20:57 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0352 Re: Texts (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 22:51:19 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0361 Re: Texts (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 12 May 1996 11:51:25 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0361 Re: Texts (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 19:20:57 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0352 Re: Texts John Drakakis wrote >I wonder if I can tease out Gabriel Egan's definition of "fetishism" just a >little more because I think that while "to invest irrationally with >significance" will do as a general rule of thumb, I'm not sure that it takes us >very much further. Than what? It's what I meant by "fetishize". >Maybe we should go back to Marx Capital vol.3... No we should not. Those chunks of Marx and Freud are useless out of their context. We can and do use "alienation", "fetish", and esp. "production" in a variety of ways without invoking Marx or Freud's definitions. > The term "Originals" here I take as relative, i.e. relative to the >editorial accretions which have accumulated over 400 years. It has not been a simple process of adding layers for 400 years. You have to distinguish Augustan 'improvement' from, say, C20 New Bibliography's privileging of earliest authorial draft over later post-theatrical text. Editing is an historically situated activity, not a removal of veils. Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 11 May 1996 22:51:19 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0361 Re: Texts It was William Godshalk who used "biblioholism". Gabriel Egan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 12 May 1996 11:51:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0361 Re: Texts John Drakakis writes: >For Wendy Thomas, > >Thanks for the reference but I think it was Gabriel Egan not me who used the >term "biblioholism". Actually it was me who talked about early seventeenth century biblioholism! Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 12:27:10 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0368 Q: *Much Ado* Illustrations Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0368. Monday, 13 May 1996. From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Sunday, 12 May 1996 06:19:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: *Much Ado* Illustrations Can anyone direct me to interesting illustrations of Much Ado About Nothing? I am aware of a painting by Alfred Elmore reproduced in the Folger catalogue and also of some line drawings from Boydell's Shakespeare Gallery, but I can't find much else. Thank you, cynthia dessen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 12:29:59 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0369 Judith Shakespeare Company Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0369. Monday, 13 May 1996. From: Edward Pixley Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 11:24:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Judith Shakespeare Company Having only recently joined the discussion group, I hope the following is not considered inappropriate. This past weekend we saw the Judith Shakespeare production of _Macbeth_. If you are in the NYC area and would like a treat, I recommend going. This fledgling company, under the direction of Joanne Zipay is off to an auspicious start. The production is solidly based in the text, is wonderfully articulate, highly energized, and very creative. Even where you might quarrel with it, the quarrels are worth having. Though it loses some of its drive after a brilliant opening, by Act III it has all its power back. I won't give away any of its imaginative choices, but get there in time to read the program. You will enjoy it too. But hurry; it's running only through May 19. Tickets at 212-592-1885.========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 11:58:39 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0370 The SHAKSPER Advisory Board Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0370. Tuesday, 14 May 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, May 14, 1996 Subject: The SHAKSPER Advisory Board Dear SHAKSPEReans, Approximately forty-five SHAKSPEReans responded to my posting of a few weeks ago regarding establishing a SHAKSPER Advisory Board with about the same number of nominations for possible members of this Board. I would like to express my gratitude to everyone who wrote with suggestions, recommendations, observations, and advice and encourage future correspondence about the conference. I carefully considered all the fine nominations and sent invitations to members who represented many of the diverse constituencies of SHAKSPER. The choices were not easy; the response was remarkable. As I indicated earlier, I am setting up the Board to obtain advice on 1) Conference Policies, 2) Complaints, and 3) Questionable Posting. Regarding conference policies, I want to invite members of SHAKSPER privately to send ideas to me for policies that would affect the conference as a whole. I will then submit those ideas to the Advisory for comments. I will consider the Board's advice and then I will send a proposal to the members for their comments. Only after this process will policies, if needed, be determined and enforced. I now have the pleasure of announcing the members of the SHAKSPER Advisory Board. Michael Best Professor, Department of English, University of Victoria, B.C. Author of articles on the drama of John Lyly and John Webster, wine, cookery and medicine in the Renaissance; editor of Renaissance books on magic and huswifery; author and developer of *Shakespeare's Life and Times,* a CD ROM. General Editor of the Internet Shakespeare Editions. Thomas Bishop Associate Professor of English at Case Western Reserve University, where he teaches Shakespeare, Renaissance Literature, Nigerian Literature, and Gay and Lesbian Literature, only sometimes simultaneously. His *Shakespeare and the Theater of Wonder* was recently published by Cambridge. He gets too much E-mail for his own good. Edna Boris Associate Professor of English at LaGuardia Community College, City University of New York. Founder and director of Words/Worth Associates, Inc., which provides writing skills and management skills training programs for lawyers and other business professionals. Author of *Shakespeare's English Kings, the People, and the Law: A Study in the Relationship Between the Tudor Constitution and the English History Plays* (Associated University Presses); an article about "C.R.A.S.S. Summer of 1995" will appear soon in *Shakespeare and the Classroom*. An article on "Teaching Shakespeare: Non-Traditional Research Topics" appeared in *The Shakespeare Newsletter* in the spring of 1993. Ralph Alan Cohen Professor of English, James Madison University. Co-founder of the Shenandoah Shakespeare Express, a traveling, non-profit Shakespeare company of which he is now Executive Director. Guest editor of the two *Shakespeare Quarterly* devoted to teaching Shakespeare. Editor of Middleton's *Your Five Gallants* for Oxford's complete works and author of articles on Jonson and Shakespeare. Kurt Daw Director of Theater Programs at Kennesaw State College and currently a member of Alan Dessen's NEH Institute at the Folger, and three years ago a member of Lois Potter's similar institute. Also a workshop leader at SAA and ATHE. Roy Flannagan Editor of *Milton Quarterly* and he has edited *Paradise Lost* (Macmillan, 1993), but that shouldn't be held against him, since he often teaches Shakespeare, he has reviewed plays in performance, and he has contributed to the nature of the debate on how to do the Variorum. Phyllis Gorfain Professor of English, Oberlin College. Recent Shakespeare publications include "Toward a Theory of Play and the Carnivalesque in *Hamlet*," "When Nothing Really Matters: Body Puns in *Hamlet*," and "Riddling as Ritual Remedy in *Measure for Measure." She is also a folklorist, and her interests in both folkloristics and in Shakespearean studies include interests in issues of texts and performance, play, ritual, riddles, and feminist theory and analysis. Terence Hawkes Professor of English, Centre for Critical and Cultural Theory, University of Wales, Cardiff. Publications include *Shakespeare and the Reason* (1964); *Shakespeare's Talking Animals* (1973); *That Shakespearean Rag* (1986); *Meaning by Shakespeare* (1992). General Editor, NEW ACCENTS series (Routledge); Editor of the journal *Textual Practice*. Dale Lyles A media specialist at East Coweta High School in Sharpsburg, GA. For the past 20 years he has been artistic director of the Newnan Community Theatre Company [http://shenandoah.peachnet.edu/~dlyles/nctc/nctc.html], where he has directed seven of Shakespeare's works, *The Winter's Tale* most recently. The study and production of Shakespeare's plays has become a lifelong habit. Cary Mazer Associate Professor of English and Chair of the Theatre Arts Program at the University of Pennsylvania; previously served as Secretary of the American Society for Theatre Research. He writes about Shakespeare Performance History, and related issues of historiography, criticism, and pedagogy. He has directed (student) productions of several plays by Shakespeare and his contemporaries, and has worked as a guest dramaturg with several professional theatres in the Philadelphia Area. He is also theatre critic for the Philadelphia City Paper. Michael Mullin Professor of English at the University of Illinois-Urbana, is Education Director for the International Globe Centre USA, Mid America Region. With the Globe and the U of I he is creating the "Shakespeare Globe USA" Website, designed to be a comprehensive first stop for Shakespeare on the World Wide Web. Suggestions for links and improvements are welcome: http://ampere.scale.uiuc.edu/shakespeare. David Schalkwyk Senior Lecturer, English Department of the University of Cape Town. Publications include articles in *Theoria*, the *Journal of Literary Studies*, *English Literary Renaissance*, and *Shakespeare Quarterly*. Translator into English of the Afrikaans novel *Another Country*, by Karel Schoeman. Raymond G. Siemens Editor of the electronic journal *Early Modern Literary Studies* and is nearing the completion of his doctoral thesis -- a study of the lyrics in the *Henry VIII Manuscript* (BL Add Ms 31922) -- at the University of British Columbia. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 12:22:06 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0371 Re: Texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0371. Tuesday, 14 May 1996. (1) From: John Drakakis Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 18:42:00 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0367 Re: Texts (2) From: John Mahon Date: Monday, 13 May 96 14:27:44 EDT Subj: SHK 7.0291 Re: Texts (3) From: Kevin J. Donovan Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 14:33:17 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: Biblioholism (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 22:51:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0367 Re: Texts (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 18:42:00 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0367 Re: Texts I must apologise for putting Bill Godshalk's phrase in Gabriel Egan's mouth. On the question of the definition of terms, Egan seems to thing that meaning is what he thinks it is. He wants to be "historical" when it suits his argument and utterly unbound by any historical context when it doesn't. Since when is the process of eidtorial accretion a "simple" process? And in any case when we get to an "original" text do we not then encounter the discursive fields within which it is historically situated? A cursory sideways glance at the political version of Deconstruction will, I am sure, reveal the provisional finitude of the epithet "original". One could argue that "Beginings" might have been a better term. I can well understand Egan's reluctance to trace the terms he uses back to Marx and Freud. However if he persists in using terms which have a recognizable history then he may well have to if he want to contest their meanings. Otherwise all we do is play the game of right you are if you think so, which I believe is a peculiarly transatlantic form of political practice which on the one hand seeks to assert vehemently that language is a social and historical phenomenon but which then insists upon separating the individual who is inscribed in its structures and who uses it from any recognizable social formation. You stick to your overdetermined democtratic practice and I'll stick to mine. Hi jacet Drakakis Cheers John Drakakis (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Mahon Date: Monday, 13 May 96 14:27:44 EDT Subject: SHK 7.0291 Re: Texts Monday, 13 May 1996 Several weeks ago, Michael Kischner inquired about the "debate" he assumed must have been stirred up by the texts of the Everyman Shakespeare, edited by John Andrews. Subsequent contributions have discussed his specific question on the text of HAMLET, and Prof. Godshalk made a brief allusion to John Andrews as an editor. In its SUMMER 1993 issue (XLIII:2), THE SHAKESPEARE NEWSLETTER provided a thorough analysis of the Everyman Shakespeare, with special attention to its textual innovations, which we found far too innovative for a text presumably intended for use in classrooms. The FALL 1993 issue (XLIII:3) included an article by John Andrews on "The Rationale of the Everyman Shakespeare." THE SHAKESPEARE NEWSLETTER attempts to keep Shakespeareans informed about new editions. In SUMMER 1992 (XLII:2) we reviewed the first volumes of the New Folger Library Shakespeare, and in FALL 1995 (XLV:3) we featured an extensive analysis of the early volumes in the third series of the Arden Shakespeare. Future issues will carry commentary on future Arden volumes, and we also hope to discuss the new Applause Shakespeare for our readers in a future issue. THE SHAKESPEARE NEWSLETTER is available in many academic libraries or directly from the English Department at Iona College, 715 North Avenue, New Rochelle, NY 10801. Tel: (914) 633-2061. Fax: (914) 637-2722. E-Mail: shnl@iona.bitnet (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kevin J. Donovan Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 14:33:17 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Biblioholism > John Drakakis writes: > > >For Wendy Thomas, > > > >Thanks for the reference but I think it was Gabriel Egan not me who used the > >term "biblioholism". > > Actually it was me who talked about early seventeenth century biblioholism! > > Yours, Bill Godshalk Malvolio, Malvolio, thy wits the heavens restore! Endeavor thyself to sleep and leave thy vain bibble babble. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 22:51:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0367 Re: Texts I wrote: >Actually it was me who talked about early seventeenth century biblioholism! Oh, dear! I suppose it was I who talked about early seventeenth century biblioholism, and not "me" at all! Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 12:56:20 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0372 Re: *Much Ado* Illustrations Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0372. Tuesday, 14 May 1996. (1) From: Rick Jones Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 13:44:32 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0368 Q: *Much Ado* Illustrations (2) From: Harry Rusche Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 15:38:42 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0368 Q: *Much Ado* Illustrations (3) From: Keith Richards Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 16:51:39 -0700 Subj: Much Ado illustration (4) From: Nick Clary Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 15:56:25 -0400 (EDT) Subj: *Much Ado* Illustrations (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 13:44:32 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0368 Q: *Much Ado* Illustrations Cynthia Dessen asks for"interesting illustrations of Much Ado About Nothing." You might check out Rowse's Annotated Shakespeare. It contains several engravings, line drawings, and production photographs that might be of interest. Rick Jones (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Rusche Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 15:38:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0368 Q: *Much Ado* Illustrations Try Richard Altick's _Paintings from Books_. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith Richards Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 16:51:39 -0700 Subject: Much Ado illustration C. Dessen wrote regarding information on illustrations of _Much Ado_. There is a painting by Robert Smirk, "The Examination of Conrade and Borachio." I gleaned this information on the WWW from a wonderful site, _Shakespeare Illustrated_ (by Harry Rusche, Emory University) available at the following URL: http://www.cc.emory.edu/ENGLISH/classes/Shakespeare_Illustrated/Shakespeare.html While this particular piece isn't available for on-line viewing, many others are. Keith Richards | sgandkr@cam.org (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Clary Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 15:56:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: *Much Ado* Illustrations Richard D. Altick's *Paintings from Books: Art and Literature in Britain, 1760-1900* (Ohio State UP, 1985) briefly surveys the most popular scenes chosen by painters from *Much Ado* (pp. 272-3). Among them, Beatrice overhearing Hero and Ursula in the orchard (3.1) was the most popular. According to Altick, "about twenty paintings of the orchard scene are recorded from 1824 to 1884, at least eight of them from the single decade 1850-60 and four more from 1863-67." Two other popular scenes were the fainting of Hero in church (4.1), and Dogberry examining Conrade and Borachio in 4.2. While Altick reproduces many images in this compendious study, the *Much Ado* illustrations are not among them. He does, however, provide details that should make it fairly easy to locate other images. For example, Altick notes of the fainting of Hero: "As the most dramatic episode in the play, it was especially subject to the accusation of `theatricalism,' which reviewers held at the ready when paintings from Shakespeare were exhibited. In 1882, the scene became the subject of one of the few notable late Victorian paintings when Forbes Robertson recorded on canvas Henry Irving's eleborate staging at the Lyceum...." Nick Clary ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 15:12:43 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0373 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0373. Tuesday, 14 May 1996. (1) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 14:35:52 +0000 Subj: Re: Mislineation & Punctuation (2) From: Richard Kincaid Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 11:27:02 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0359 Re: Mislineation (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 14:35:52 +0000 Subject: Re: Mislineation & Punctuation David Lindley, University of Leeds, writes: >But to suggest that the Folio lineation (or punctuation for that matter) is >somehow closer to a real theatrical text is, I'm afraid, just to misunderstand >the nature of the copy that the Folio printers had and the liberties they (and >scribes) were prepared to take with it. As an actor, I have always enjoyed using the punctuation in the Folio and Quarto texts as a clue to the "flow" of the text and how the argument of the speech develops. I understood there to be a relationship between the rhetoric of the speech and the punctuation, noting a difference between a semi-colon, full-colon, comma and full-stop. I also enjoy reading a modern punctuation edition (especially early on). I didn't realize that it is considered to be as "dodgy" as the lineation - were the compositors making up the punctuation too? Obviously there were different "rules" for its use - but were the compositors as "free and easy" with it as they were with lineation? Thanks, eric (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Kincaid Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 11:27:02 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0359 Re: Mislineation Not only did Shakes punctuate for more or less 'natural' intervals, that is, to conform more to what we hear rather than what is now proper written English (as Greg G. wrote), but also (MOSTLY!) to give the actors direction. Editors corrected punctaution, Capitalizations, made sentences of parenthetical phrases, and spelling errors, all of which Shakespeare had done purposely. Remember his troupe didn't have months to rehearse and there was no such thing as a "director." (lucky them) The actors saw nothing but their lines and their que, never the whole play, so he had to convey his "direction" through the way he wrote: if he wanted the actor to "plow through" a speach, he'd use a colin when a period seems proper. If he wanted to make sure the Actorr didn't lose the "R" at the end of a word, he's spell it with two "R"s. If he wanted the actor to stress a something so the audience would take note that This is important to the plot, Shakespeare would capitalize it. Hope that helps ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 15:20:02 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0374 Re: The Macbeths Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0374. Tuesday, 14 May 1996. (1) From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 15:56:41 PST Subj: Macbeth indifferent? (2) From: Tunis Romein Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 20:54:49 -0400 Subj: Macbeth's grief (3) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 08:39:47 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0356 Re: Othello and Macbeth (4) From: Pat Dunlay Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 10:15:17 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0366 Re: L. Macbeth (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 15:56:41 PST Subject: Macbeth indifferent? I agree with Dunlay and Harvey that Macbeth's "Tomorrow" speech expresses anything but indifference. Still, it is striking that his eloquence is general, containing no references to his wife. And although it may be that Lady Macbeth's death prompts thoughts of the brevity and meaninglessness of life, one senses that it is his own life that Macbeth is reflecting on. I do not suggest that Macbeth is "indifferent" to his wife's death, but the abstractness of his reaction to a profoundly personal loss is surely both a sign and a cause of his bleak situation. Best, Dan Lowenstein UCLA Law School (2)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tunis Romein Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 20:54:49 -0400 Subject: Macbeth's grief What Macbeth says when he hears of the death of his wife reminds me of Brutus's response on seeing the dead body of Cassius: Friends, I owe more tears To this dead man than you shall see me pay. I shall find time, Cassius, I shall find time. Come, therefore, and to Thasos send his body: His funerals shall not be in our camp, Lest it discomfort us. (V, iii) His grief is profound, but he is too busy, i.e. he doesn't have "time," to display it openly because he has a battle to fight. The same could be true of Macbeth: She should have died hereafter; There would have been a time for such a word. (V, v) Macbeth is, of course, more hardened by his experiences than Brutus, but not so hardened as to have lost all feeling for his wife. Let's not forget that the most poignant speech in the play occurs after Macbeth asks the doctor about his wife's welfare. MACBETH How does your patient, doctor? DOCTOR Not so sick, my lord, As she is troubled with thick coming fancies, That keep her from her rest. MACBETH Cure her of that. Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased, Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow, Raze out the written troubles of the brain And with some sweet oblivious antidote Cleanse the stuff'd bosom of that perilous stuff Which weighs upon the heart? (V, iii) Tunis Romein Charleston, SC USA (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 08:39:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0356 Re: Othello and Macbeth Chris; Not to be a wiseguy, but of course all the deaths in Macbeth were feigned (the actors didn't actually die onstage). Sorry. Today's audiences are so blase about staged events--even real deaths on newsclips seem staged since they happen onstage--we can't feel the way Shakespeare's audiences felt about staged events, we can only reconstruct it for ourselves as best we can intellectually. Denied other forms of entertainment, no movies, radio, tv, even books, since so few could read, this would be the only contact many had with artfully "feigned" events/stories, therefore the impact must have been powerful. The discussion among the rude mechanicals in MSND about how to play the lion shows the playwright's concern over making the "show" too intense for a given audience. These people were all, audience, actors and playwrights, much closer to the theater in its original function as potent religious ritual, the feigned death of the protagonist replaced the actual death of the summer king not so far back in time as it is for us, and the sense of expiation of some brutal natural force must still have been extremely potent then in a way it no longer is for us. Stephanie Hughes (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Dunlay Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 10:15:17 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0366 Re: L. Macbeth Chris Stroffolino - one last word on Macbeth and his Lady. I think that her faint is real because I see her as less of a monster than many readers. I agree that she is genuinely shocked by the murder of the grooms, but more shocked and upset by Macbeth's ruthlessness, something she thought he did not have ("Milk of human kindness" instead). His line "She should have died hereafter" I heard Ian McKellan explain it this way. He meant that he wished her death had come at a better time, when he would have been able to truly mourn her ("there would have been a time for such a thing") Now he is so caught up in the battle and in his own despair that even this great grief cannot be attended to. I buy this explanation because it evokes the pity necessary for classic tragedy that otherwise leaves Macbeth a heartless monster "the butcher" Malcolm calls him at the end. Besides, I figure McKellan knows what he's talking about. Pat Dunlay ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 15:24:01 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0375 Q: Shylock's Property Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0375. Tuesday, 14 May 1996. From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 16:39:37 PST Subject: Merchant Query I wonder if anyone knows how to resolve an ambiguity regarding the disposition of Shylock's property at the end of the trial scene in "Merchant of Venice." Antonio makes the proposal, which is accepted, that Shylock will have half the property "in use, to render it/ upon his [i.e., Shylock's] death unto" Lorenzo. A "use" at that time was a legal arrangement comparable to the modern trust. The person who we call a trustee and who then would be said to hold property subject to a "use" is and was said to hold legal title, but the beneficiary of the trust or of the use holds and held equitable title. It is the equitable title that has value. The question is, who had the benefit to (i.e., who held equitable title of) the land during Shylock's lifetime. In a footnote to an article I published a couple of years ago, I cited one modern critic (Richard Weisberg) who assumes Antonio holds the equitable title, and another (Lawrence Danson) who assumes Shylock holds it. Each assumes his conclusion without defense or discussion. In the footnote, I expressed the belief that Shakespeare, intentionally or not, leaves the question unanswered. Does anyone know of an informed consideration of this question? The issue has a degree of significance for the interpretation of the play. At the time Antonio makes this proposal, he is still under the impression that he has been wiped out financially. The only asset he has is his right to half of Shylock's property. He certainly is engaging in an act of generosity here, because at a minimum he is giving Lorenzo the right to the property whenever Shylock dies. But he may be rendering himself destitute in order to save Shylock from destitution. Best, Dan Lowenstein UCLA Law School ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 15:28:24 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0376 Re: Funeral Elegy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0376. Tuesday, 14 May 1996. From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 13 May 1996 18:58:32 -0700 Subject: Funeral Elegy William Gifford, editor of John Ford's works, comments on the man's tangled style: "Ford's principle failure is his perplexity of language; frequently, too, after perversely labouring with a remote idea till he has confused his meaning, instead of throwing it aside, he obtrudes it upon the reader involved in inextricable obscurity." Gifford was speaking of such lines as these, from Ford's "Fame's Memorial". "Lo, here the pith of valour moulded fast In curious workmanship of Nature's art: Lo, here the monuments which ever last To all succeeding ages of desert, Noble in all, and all in every part: Records of fame and characters of brass, Containing acts, such acts conceit do pass." Compare this with these lines from the "Funeral Elegy". "Lo, here a lesson by experience taught For men whose pure simplicity hath drawn Their trust to be betray'd by being caught Within the snares of making truth a pawn: Whiles it, not doubting whereinto it enters, Without true proof and knowledge of a friend, Sincere in singleness of heart, adventers To give fit cause, ere love begin to end...." Not that it's totally impossible to draw the writer's meaning out of these passages, but one wonders also if it was worth the struggle to discover such common sentiments. The man means well, but he is sluggish, and lacks clarity of expression. Gifford says further of the writer: "Ford's grammatical experiments take from the simplicity of his diction, while they afford no strength whatever to his descriptions." Gifford also lays to him the "composition of uncouth phrases", and chides him for his "peevish mood". The Funeral Elegy, as you will see, is full of these faults: "But O far be it, our unholy lips Should so profane the deity above As thereby to ordain revenging whips Against the day of Judgement and of Love. The hand that lends us honor in our days May shorten when it please, and justly take Our honor from us many sundry ways, As best becomes that wisdom did us make." If you've not read the Elegy, the above is a fair sample of what you're in for. It's been claimed that you have to hear the words spoken to really appreciate the poem. Anything would help, of course, but I like a poem I can hold in my hand. To be sure, there are a few lines that echo Shakespeare,such as "And those are much more noble in the mind", or maybe "obscur'd without a tomb", and such sparce phrases, but there is no extended line or thought which bears comparison with Shakespear. As Gifford says of John Ford, and this applies to W.S. of the Funeral Elegy, the poet seems "to have aspired to imitate [Shakespeare]. He cannot be complimented on his success...." And so I think that Don Foster has discovered a new poem by John Ford, which is very good for him, and are there some Ford scholars who would care to comment? Besides, there's some excellent biography to go along with it, Ford being in the right place at the right time, a Devonshire man, friend of the Peter family, all that, a young man interested in the theater. On the other hand, if we think that Shakespeare wrote the Elegy there is no biographical connection at all, except what may be imagined out of the very obscure language of the poem. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 15:34:29 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0377 Re: Herculean Hero; Teaching; ADO Explication Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0377. Tuesday, 14 May 1996. (1) From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Tuesday, 14 May 96 10:34:00 0BS Subj: The Herculean Hero (2) From: Clark Bowlen Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 10:02:22 -0400 (EDT) Subj: RE: SHK 7.0364 TEACHING SHAKESPEARE THROUGH PERFORMANCE (3) From: Florence Amit Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 14:49:53 +0300 Subj: MUCH ADO Explication (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Tuesday, 14 May 96 10:34:00 0BS Subject: The Herculean Hero Yes, Eugene Waith did write _The Herculean Hero in Marlowe, Chapman, Shakespeare and Dryden_. I have recently had occasion to reread it and found no reference to the Malvolio parallel. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Bowlen Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 10:02:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RE: SHK 7.0364 TEACHING SHAKESPEARE THROUGH PERFORMANCE My favorite manual for breaking Shakspeare's actor code is Cicely Berry, _The Actor and His Text_ (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1987) ISBN 0-684-18937-2. Her approach to text and to the process of mining makes it clear that she is aiming at the same result, although from a different direction, as Stanislavsky-based approaches--to find the inner life of the (do I dare say it) character. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Florence Amit Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 14:49:53 +0300 Subject: MUCH ADO Explication To Jeff Meyers: I did not find Mr. Groves comment amusing nor do I think he intended to discuss the matter humorously; but rather to make sure that discussion was curtailed by guillotining me. Had my larger essay appeared before, perhaps he would have abstained, considering that my neck was thicker than anticipated . Alas there are some among you who appear more clever than brave. But so it is that although I agree that I am not the person to do a serious work of Hebrew scholarship, the Hebrew never-the less is there, in Shakespeare and that is really my message to you. No joker will remove it. Hopefully someone, better equipped than I, will make a systematic and comprehensive survey. I thank Keith Richard for his noble defense of me. I am not a professor but an artist. Is that not good enough to open new aspects of consideration? Florence Amit ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 10:30:51 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0378 Re: The Macbeths Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0378. Thursday, 16 May 1996. (1) From: Cornelius Novelli Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 23:27:52 EST Subj: RE: SHK 7.0374 Re: The Macbeths (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 20:24:53 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0374 Re: The Macbeths (3) From: Margaret Brockland-Nease Date: Wednesday, 15 May 96 12:54:00 EST Subj: Macbeth and indifference (4) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 08:21:50 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0374 Re: The Macbeths (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cornelius Novelli Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 23:27:52 EST Subject: RE: SHK 7.0374 Re: The Macbeths I have missed, I think, most of the thread on the Macbeths. But perhaps eight or ten years ago I saw a wonderfully imaginative no-budget summer production of MACBETH at Cornell that has some bearing on the "Tomorrow" speech. At the words "The queen, my lord, is dead" servants were carrying in the body of Lady Macbeth in and setting it downstage right. Macbeth crossed and knelt by her side for most of the "Tomorrow" speech, quietly saying it to her, and the actor's subtext was to comfort Lady Macbeth at the loss of her life, i.e. life isn't worth anything anyway, no great loss, you're not missing anything worth having. It was a bit complex and terribly moving -- Macbeth spoke with simple conviction, clearly believing that life was worthless, and adducing that terrible fact as _consolation_ for someone he loved, a truth that would somehow help her. And then they took a further liberty: Lady M sat up in his arms, the white sheet over her dropping away, and she looked into his face and animatedly reprised a few earlier lines from I-v, e.g. ". . . have transported me beyond the present" and " . . . sovereign sway and masterdom." It was a chilling moment, and for a wild moment one thought that they'd somehow been given a chance to make the right choice this time. But it was just M's memory being triggered -- devastatingly -- and Lady M slumped back leaving things infinitely bleaker than they had been. I don't know if other productions have done this business before or since, but it certainly emphasized the closeness of the Macbeths -- perhaps the _loss_ of their closeness puts it more accurately -- and the magnitude of their other losses. For me it opened up a lot more possibilities in the "Tomorrow" speech, touching on pity and fear. I do wish that I remembered the names of the actors and director, but it's quite possible that someone reading this knows of the production. --Neil Novelli, Le Moyne College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 20:24:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0374 Re: The Macbeths I don't think it would be merely an appeal to a 20th Century sense of "naturalistic psychology" to claim that Macbeth, the character, is presented as more of a heartless monster than the other eponymous characters of what used to be called "the big four" (though less of one than RICHARD III). That in this tragedy (though, again, my speciality is not the tragedies as much--so I admit my ignorance), Sh. was doing something different than in the others. It is significant, I think that the play is not called The Macbeths and though there is definitely some sorrow towards her death on his part, Macbeth's "there would have been time" clearly shows his subordination of her death to his more self-interested concerns. Should he be judged negatively for this? I would argue yes (except in the moments when I realize I shouldn't judge characters at all and am more interested in "language" and "structure" and pointing out "feigning"). In the first place, Macbeth believes he leads a "charmed life"--is protected by supernatural forces---thus I don't know if we can so easily "excuse" (as Tunis Romain, FLorence Amit, and Ian McKellen has) his indifference to his wife (if not THE HUMAN CONDITION---which, I will grant, he is not indifferent to). I don't think that's the strongest argument I could make, however A stronger argument seems to be to turn to the passage that Tunis Romain pointed out. When Macbeth is speaking to the Doctor, and says "Cure her of that", it's hard not to see him as saying "YOU cure her of that." Even the formality with which he speaks of "your patient" (rather than "my wife" or even "the queen" seems to suggest a certain coldness. I think there's at least more than one indication that part of Lady Macbeth's madness is a RESULT of her husband's growing estrang- ent from her (at least as much as her realization of her guilt in her involvement in Duncan's murder)--and this is clearly intended to isolate Macbeth (far more than Hamlet's similar indifference to Ophelia) as "some brute natural force" which the function of classical tragedy was, as Stephanie Hughes would say, is to "expaite." Macbeth's guilt becomes more and more his own. The witches are no Iago, nor even a Goneril and Regan. And Duncan is no Claudius. Chris Stroffolino (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Brockland-Nease Date: Wednesday, 15 May 96 12:54:00 EST Subject: Macbeth and indifference Dan Lowenstein writes, "It is striking that [Macbeth's] eloquence is general, containing no references to his wife." With apologies for not having looked further into this, I suggest that Macbeth's "Out, out brief candle" is a metaphorical reference to his wife. I haven't yet looked for other connections between light and the lady in the play, but like the light in the line prior to the candle image, she is now a part of his "yesterdays." Furthermore, it is without her that Macbeth's tomorrows creep in their petty pace. Just as his tomorrows are now without her, so must his speech about tomorrow be (almost) without reference to her. I wonder about the "word" Macbeth mentions at the beginning of the passage: "She should have died hereafter; There would have been a time for such a word." Could the word be "Queen," which Seyton uses in "The Queen, my lord, is dead"? Given a longer life with her and a chance to expect her death, could Macbeth have overcome his grief enough to speak directly of her? Like Mr. Lowenstein, I see this as a passage expressing loss rather than indifference, but I do not find the absence of her name or title from most of it surprising. Margaret Brockland-Nease Department of Humanities Brunswick College (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 08:21:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0374 Re: The Macbeths Hamlet's response to Laertes' geste, the leap into Ophelia's grave to hold her one final time, speaks to a defensive attitude towards the very charge made here against Macbeth, that he showed no grief. After all, all Laertes did was to show his own grief and threaten revenge on Hamlet for bringing about her death, he said nothing of Hamlet's indifference, yet it is to this that Hamlet responds in his list of dramatic shows of grief ("woot drink up eisel" etc.). He is enraged at a charge that hasn't been made. Again it seems to me we hear the author protesting a similar charge via the mouth of a protagonist. I am reminded of Lord Byron whose response to the death of his mother was to put on boxing gloves and have a bout with one of his buddies. He stopped for a moment to look out the window as the funeral procession passed, then on with the exercise. The truth of course for this most passionately romantic of all humans/writers, was that he was so overcome with feeling that he had to fight it. He was too close to the edge to allow himself to behave as his friends and relatives would wish, to trundle along after the coffin and make some appropriate little speech. What he did do was to wear black from that moment on for the rest of his life. His sudden leap into stardom a few months later made his black clothes fashionable, so much so that men ever since have worn the same clothes he wore that summer on formal occasions, what we now call white tie and tails. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 10:45:22 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0379 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0379. Thursday, 16 May 1996. (1) From: Thomas E. Ruddick Date: Tuesday, 14 May 96 18:49:51 EST Subj: RE: SHK 7.0373 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation (2) From: C. David Frankel Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 15:55:29 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0373 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation (3) From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 21:14:00 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0373 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation (4) From: Michael Saenger Date: Wednesday, 15 May 1996 11:30:42 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0373 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas E. Ruddick Date: Tuesday, 14 May 96 18:49:51 EST Subject: RE: SHK 7.0373 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation As an actor and director myself, I confess amazement at the comments coming down about using "Shakespeare's punctuation" to guide performance. Friends! We DO NOT KNOW Shakespeare's pronunciation--unless I have been severely cut off from reality here in my bucolic brigadoon, *none* of Shakespeare's original "foul papers" or part-books, or even finished original book-keepers copies, have been discovered. The punctuation in the quartos and folios, then, must often be somewhat removed from Shakespeare's originals--while some of the plays may correspond closely, I wouldn't want to stake my performance on any single semi-colon's validity! To say (as E. Thompson and R. Kincaid seem to have) that Shakespeare made spelling errors purposefully to guide performance is, I think, to invent standards for English spelling that did not exist in Elizabethan times. Shakespeare never mis-spelled a word; words could be spelled any way that a writer thought correct in those days. It causes problems for us as readers today, accustomed as we are to standard spellings, but that's the way it was. Finally, I can't believe that Burbage and company would or could have been slavishly attentive to the difference in rhythm between a semicolon and a period! Contemporary accounts indicate that it was common for performers (burdened as they were with presenting a different play daily) to botch up parts, paraphrasing monologues, entering wrong, making inaccurate sound effects, etc. (In fact, there's some evidence that performers would sometimes insert their own business--Will Kemp mugging to the groundlings when the script didn't support it, for example--thus further perverting the playscript). I deeply appreciate the art of editors who can provide new insights into Shakespeare by a careful study of such issues as punctuation, and I don't want to seem to disparage that aspect of this discussion. However, any performer who delivers Shakespeare's lines to an audience should pay more attention to communicating the *meaning* of those lines--accomplished by emphasizing key words--than to delivering precise variants of the punctuation! (Egad, I'm reminded of the George Carlin routine where he pronounces punctuation marks! <--that exclamation point would have been said "Shhhooop POP") Thomas E. "TR" Ruddick (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 15:55:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0373 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation Richard Kincaid said: > Remember his troupe didn't have months to rehearse and there was no such > thing as a "director." (lucky them) The actors saw nothing but their > lines and their que, never the whole play, so he had to convey his > "direction" through the way he wrote: if he wanted the actor to "plow > through" a speach, he'd use a colin when a period seems proper. If he > wanted to make sure the Actorr didn't lose the "R" at the end of a word, > he's spell it with two "R"s. If he wanted the actor to stress a > something so the audience would take note that This is important to the > plot, Shakespeare would capitalize it. Although presumably Willie the Shake was there to lend an ear. C. David Frankel frankel@arts.usf.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 21:14:00 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0373 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation I'm afraid that the question of punctuation just is not as straightforward as Richard Kincaid suggests. Whilst it is likely that Shakespeare himself punctuated lightly, the texts that we have in folio and quartos are extremely various in their habits of punctuation, reflecting both the scribal habits of people like Ralph Crane, and the varying degrees of freedom that different compositors allowed themselves. It is certainly very interesting to look at F punctuation as Eric Armstrong suggests, - and I do think that the collations in modern editions do not sufficiently record the editor's departures from it. But we simply can't assume that it is Shakespeare's, nor, since it was presumably a play-house scribe who transcribed the actor's parts, that what they had before them either reflected faithfully Shakespeare's own manuscript, or corresponds with the printed text that has come down to us. We just can't say that Shakespeare 'purposefully' misspelt words - or at least, can't say which those words might be (if the concept of 'misspelling' has any valency in the period anyway). So what is an editor to do? I'm working on The Tempest. It's generally agreed that this was printed from a manuscript prepared by Ralph Crane, and it's certainly the case that Crane punctuated relatively heavily, and imposed his own preferences on the copy he had before him. Should I, then, reproduce Crane's punctuation, or should I 'thin it out' - which might be in line with Shakespeare's habits (if we could really know what they were), and is certainly more in line with modern practice? If one compares, say, Kermode's Arden edition with Orgel's Oxford, then the former retains much more of the Folio (Cranean) punctuation than the latter. I don't think this is trivial, either - and perhaps this example will show why. Miranda responds to Prospero's request to supply him with her memories with the lines: 'Tis farre off: And rather like a dreame, then an assurance That my remembrance warrants: Leaving on one side the question of the colons (Crane was very fond of them), what about the comma after 'dreame'? Almost all recent editors omit it - and one could make a perfectly good case that it's an example of the kind of pernickety clausal punctuation that Crane would be likely to introduce. But, equally, one could suggest that to omit the comma persuades the speaker of the lines that the opposition Miranda makes is between 'dreame' and 'assurance', whereas with the comma the primary opposition becomes one between 'dreame' and 'remembrance', between the uncertainties of the middle region of the brain where Spenser, in his bodily allegory in Faerie Queene Bk II, locates *Phantastes*, to whom belong dreams, fantasies and wild imaginings, and the rearward chamber of Eumnestes, or historical memory. In general terms, one might say, there's not a lot of difference - but in a play so preoccupied with memory, the point becomes significant, I think. At the moment I want to keep the comma - even if it's Crane's, it seems to me to suggest to a reader or actor something small, but not trivial. (Though I'd be glad of any comments.) And really that's the problem - all punctuation is coercive - whether it's Shakespeare's, Crane's, compositor B's, or the editor's. One answer - and I think Honigman suggests it in his Othello book, and I believe it's being tried in at least one volume of the new Middleton - is to have no punctuation at all and leave readers to sort it out for themselves. I'm not persuaded of this line. Sorry to drone on so about minutiae - but editors do dream of commas (and it makes a change from the Funeral Elegy?) David Lindley University of Leeds (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Wednesday, 15 May 1996 11:30:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0373 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation Regarding Mr. Kincaid's comment on Folio punctuation. Actually, evidence (Sir Thomas More autograph) is that Shakespeare did not punctuate at all. He didn't need to; he was always available for questions in the theater. What was in demand were his words, and they were very valuable, so he could best serve the company by ignoring punctuation and writing quickly. Where the punctuation in the Folio comes from is a complicated question. It surely comes in part from Hemmings and Condell, who would be excellent authorities on how the lines were said. Punctuation can be a very interesting subject, and the Folio is a fascinating resource, but in the end perhaps we must accept the fact that Shakespeare himself allowed his words to be interpreted in different ways. In other words, if we really search for the original, we find that it is intentionally unfixed. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 10:55:00 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0380 Re: Shylock's Property Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0380. Thursday, 16 May 1996. (1) From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Tuesday, 14 May 96 21:44:19 UT Subj: RE: SHK 7.0375 Q: Shylock's Property (2) From: Jesus Cora Date: Wednesday, 15 May 1996 13:19:08 UTC+0 Subj: SHK 7.0375 Q: Shylock's Property (3) From: Florence Amit Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 09:56:55 +0300 Subj: Reply: Shylock's Property (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Tuesday, 14 May 96 21:44:19 UT Subject: RE: SHK 7.0375 Q: Shylock's Property Daniel; I'm sure from what you say that you know Coke (Penny Cyclopaedia) and Bacon (three articles: Chudliegh's Case (vol 14, p. 155); Reading on the Statute of Uses (vol 14, p.277) and Case of Revocation of Uses (vol 15, p. 78) - Spedding et al._Works_. Quote from the first paragraph of "Reading..." (delivered at Grays Inn, Lent, 1600) "...a law whereupon the inheritances of this realm are tossed at this day, as upon a sea, in such sort that it is hard to say which bark will sink, and which will get to the haven: that is to say, what assurances will stand good, and what will not." (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Wednesday, 15 May 1996 13:19:08 UTC+0100 Subject: SHK 7.0375 Q: Shylock's Property To me Antonio forfeits Shylock's penalty so that he is not destitute. Now, it occurs to me that the revelation that his ships are safe and sound could be interpreted as a sort of "providential reward" for his generosity and his mercy, a proof, then, that Shakespeare shared this tennet of Christianity? Yours, J. Cora fmjca@alcala.es (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Florence Amit Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 09:56:55 +0300 Subject: Reply: Shylock's Property To Daniel Lowenstein , Do you wish your question to be answered exactly as you termed it and with your own sources or can it be answered by what I believe are Shakespeare's terms and their implications as I have characterized them in my listserv essay "Shakespeare's Hebrew"? If the latter than accept that Portia's name stem in Hebrew implies that she must elucidate, 'feret', (P and F are the same Hebrew letter, peh) in the way of the Talmud. Shylock's condition is dealt with in Hebrew law under the heading of 'Bailment'. (Notice that the name sounds almost the same as Belmont, where Portia dwells.) Of three general categories, that which suits Shylock's final condition is the 'sho'el' , borrower "and on him is imposed the highest duty of care toward the owner of the article , since the bailee (Shalish) has borrowed it for his own benefit. He is therefore liable to make restitution in all cases of damage or death" (Menachem Elon, "The Principles of Jewish Law", Encyclopedia Judaica, Jerusalem, pp. 256-262) Since the dispensations of the sho'el does not apply to immovable chattels Shylock must "record a gift / Here in the court, of all he dies possessed " which is as Portia calls it "a deed of gift" and Shylock agrees "Send the deed after me/ and I will sign it." As you say, the questions of whose and which duties and limitations apply to each of the three involved has not always been clear during the course of the play, so that there is truly a need of an elucidator. Concerning Antonio's destitution: 1. His "argosies" did not all sink, they are simply late returning and indeed three of them "richly" come to port by the end of the play. Before that he is hardly more at pecuniary risk than is his usual condition. 2. His investment in Bassanio's future has also paid off. And those debts can now be recalled not to mention the desire of Bassanio and Portia to give him hospitality. 3. He does take money from Shylock. "To quit the fine for one half of his goods,/ I am content. (IV, I, 376-381) Were he too grasping one would have to question his dislike of usury. Florence Amit ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 08:48:27 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0381 Re: Hebrew Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0381. Friday, 17 May 1996. (1) From: Thomas Ruddick Date: Tuesday, 14 May 96 21:26:18 EST Subj: re: Hebrew (query) (2) From: Jeff Myers Date: Wednesday, 15 May 1996 08:54:50 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: criminal revolutionary academic riffraff (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Ruddick Date: Tuesday, 14 May 96 21:26:18 EST Subject: re: Hebrew (query) Florence Amit: my knowledge of Shakespeare's familiarity with languages other than English is limited to Jonson's grudging Folio compliment that Shakespeare was great even though he knew "little Latin and less Greek". So that I can mentally index your comments properly, can you please share any historical evidence you may have that Shakespeare actually knew Hebrew? Thanks Thomas E. "TR" Ruddick Edison Community College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Wednesday, 15 May 1996 08:54:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: criminal revolutionary academic riffraff >To Jeff Meyers: > >I did not find Mr. Groves comment amusing nor do I think he intended to discuss >the matter humorously; but rather to make sure that discussion was curtailed by >guillotining me. Had my larger essay appeared before, perhaps he would have >abstained, considering that my neck was thicker than anticipated . Alas there >are some among you who appear more clever than brave. But so it is that >although I agree that I am not the person to do a serious work of Hebrew >scholarship, the Hebrew never-the less is there, in Shakespeare and that is >really my message to you. No joker will remove it. Hopefully someone, better >equipped than I, will make a systematic and comprehensive survey. I thank Keith >Richard for his noble defense of me. I am not a professor but an artist. Is >that not good enough to open new aspects of consideration? > >Florence Amit Now, I see that the unfortunately misguided Mr. Groves' crime was much worse than the assault with which he was originally charged, with the implication of a brutal physical attack on a defenseless victim. Now, I see that Mr. Owens displayed a contempt for the ordinary decencies of academic life that reminds one of the worst excesses of the French Revolution. Now, I see the context in which Mr. Richard's defense was, indeed, "noble." I shudder at the thought of the next crime of which this criminal academic revolutionary will be found guilty. Mr. Groves, I'm afraid I will have to dissociate myself from your highly questionable activities. I must have lost my head when I first leaped to your defense. Suitably, I hope, chastened, Jeff Myers p.s.--Perhaps I should take offense at the misspelling of my name, but I'll consider the error unintentional, this time, and try to carry on despite the pain. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 10:39:16 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0382 Re: Thasos/Tarsus; ADO Illustrations; Bandwidth Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0382. Friday, 17 May 1996. (1) From: Steve Sohmer Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 18:12:36 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0374 Thasos/Tarsus (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 14:47:20 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0372 Re: *Much Ado* Illustrations (3) From: Thomas Ruddick Date: Tuesday, 14 May 96 15:01:47 EST Subj: RE: SHK 7.0371 Re: Texts (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 18:12:36 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0374 Thasos/Tarsus Nitpick. Tunis Romein's quote of Cassius is not quite correct. Come therefore, and to Tharsus send his body, The emendation to "Thassos," introduced by L.Theobald, though popular, is spurious. It's risky to read Julius Caesar in any text other than the Folio. All the best, Steve Sohmer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1996 14:47:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0372 Re: *Much Ado* Illustrations There's an interesting picture of Dogberry's "interrogation" of Conrade and Borachio reprinted in the CHARLES BOYCE Shakespeare A to Z... (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Ruddick Date: Tuesday, 14 May 96 15:01:47 EST Subject: RE: SHK 7.0371 Re: Texts In the interests of those who pay for internet messages by the bit--it is pointless to repost in order to correct minor grammatical slippages. Whether he uses the proper "I" or the common "me" we still know him to be W. Godshalk of biblioholic fame--the meaning, unobscure, emerges despite grammar. Therefore save the bandwidth-- Thomas E. "TR" Ruddick ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 10:47:54 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0383 Re: Teaching; Texts; Funeral Elegy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0383. Friday, 17 May 1996. (1) From: David Skeele Date: Wednesday, 15 May 96 11:13:45 EDT Subj: SHK 7.0364 TEACHING SHAKESPEARE THROUGH PERFORMANCE (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 15 May 1996 23:37:00 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0371 Re: Texts (3) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 15 May 1996 18:07:10 -0700 Subj: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Wednesday, 15 May 96 11:13:45 EDT Subject: SHK 7.0364 TEACHING SHAKESPEARE THROUGH PERFORMANCE In response to Milla Riggio's query about useful text for the teaching of Acting Shakespeare, I have had good luck with Robert Cohen's book (I believe called "Acting Shakespeare" or "Acting in Shakespeare"). It is marred by a dreadful middle section called "a gallery of Shakespearean characters," which features photos of a couple of actors mugging their way through conceptions of a number of characters, but aside from this unfortunate chapter, I have found it to be clear, engagingly written and full of really helpful exercises. I usually combine it with Kristen Linklater's "Freeing Shakespeare's Voice" and Cicely Berry's "Voice and the Actor." Hope this helps. David Skeele Slippery Rock University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 15 May 1996 23:37:00 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0371 Re: Texts John Drakakis wrote >On the question of the definition of terms, Egan seems to thing that meaning is >what he thinks it is. He wants to be "historical" when it suits his argument >and utterly unbound by any historical context when it doesn't. I don't at all reject the validity of Marxist and Freudian notions of "fetish", and agree that somebody might think I was invoking them. But I wasn't, and made that clear upon request. As you have shown, Marx uses the word in a different way to Freud. Or, presumably they both use some non-English word or words that have been translated as "fetish". To claim, as I do, to have been using "fetish" in a non-specialist sense (which I defined at your request) is not to claim that meaning isn't social and contested.But if you don't accept that "fetishize" can have the non-specialist meaning too then you cut yourself off from the majority of speakers of the language. You might as well say that I can't speak of "surplus" energy without invoking the Marxist sense of the word. Concerning the Shakespearean Originals series... > And in any case when we get to an "original" text do we not then encounter > the discursive fields within which it is historically situated?...One could > argue that "Beginings" might have been a better term. I'd quibble on that one too. The early printed texts of Shakespeare are variously mediated forms that cannot easily be put under one category. Is a printed text based on an authorial draft the same kind of "beginning" as a one based on post-performance text? What if the post-performance text became a book because the play was no longer in the repertory of the company. Isn't this the "ending" rather than the beginning? Especially in the case of Shakespeare who appears to have had no interest in the plays being printed. I'd be happy with "Shakespearean Early Printed Texts" as the title of the series! > A cursory sideways glance at the political version of Deconstruction > will, I am sure, reveal the provisional finitude of the epithet "original". I genuinely don't understand you here, sorry. Gabriel Egan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 15 May 1996 18:07:10 -0700 Subject: Funeral Elegy Here are some curious lines out of the Funeral Elegy: "And here to thy memorable worth, In this last act of friendship, sacrifice My love to thee, which I could not set forth In any other habit of disguise." The writer seems to say that he is writing the Elegy as a "last act of friendship", that seems clear. And then that odd phrase "sacrifice my love". What does that mean? How do you sacrifice your love directed towards another? Or is that what he means? But the most puzzling is the last part: "I could not set forth in any other habit of disguise". A disguise to what, the Elegy, his friendship, his sacrifice, himself? Well, it isn't clear. But you've got to consider this "disguise" word. My theory, anyway, is that "W.S." was not Shakespeare, but John Ford in disguise. The trouble with the writer of the Elegy was of the same trouble Ford had with rambling syntax. They seem to offer some information, but not at all, the writer being undone by trick language. There's much of this in the Elegy. You might argue, for example, that Shakespeare was young when he wrote it, or was only in a poetical muse for a time, thinking he was young. But John Ford _was_ young, and known to be an elegist. But besides all, I hope you'll only have to read a few lines of the Funeral Elegy to see that "W.S." was much ado of piety, and much a loss for poetry, nor was the writer our man, our darling of language, our great unknown, our "Sweet Willie". ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 11:11:18 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0387 Re: Punctuation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0387. Friday, 17 May 1996. (1) From: Fran Teague Date: Thursday, 16 May 96 11:34:22 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0379 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation (2) From: James Schaeffer Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 14:44:56 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0379 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation (3) From: Armstrong Eric Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 15:52:34 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re Punctuation and spelling and sound effects (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 16:26:58 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0379 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation (5) From: Thomas L. Berger Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 22:47:12 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0379 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Thursday, 16 May 96 11:34:22 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0379 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation Regarding the discussion of whether actors in early modern productions used the punctuation and spelling of the playtexts to guide their interpretations: can someone direct me to the source that established that all these actors were literate? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaeffer Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 14:44:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0379 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation When David Linley quoted these lines from *The Tempest* 'Tis farre off: And rather like a dreame, then an assurance That my remembrance warrants: he focussed on the uncertainty of the passage's punctuation. But these lines also demonstrate the spelling problem. Changing "then" to "than" (as G. B. Harrison, whose edition I happen to have in my office, did) conveys Miranda's sense of the opposition between her actual, faint memory of the time before banishment and what she feels the memory of real events should be, thus revealing her uncertainy concerning these events--and own identity. But suppose one wanted stubbornly to argue the case for "then," since that's what the text quoted above says. In that case, "then" could suggest a growing assurance on Miranda's part about this faintly "recovered memory" -- albeit only two half-lines' worth of assurance, soon to be dashed when her father asks if she can remember how she came to be here: "But that I do not." That certainly does not provide much context to hang an interpretation on, but performances have been built on flimsier evidence. Jim Schaefer (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Armstrong Eric Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 15:52:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re Punctuation and spelling and sound effects In response to Thomas E. Ruddick: I believe that the punctuation sound effects were the intellectual property of Victor Borge, not George Carlin. Though misspelling is, as you say, not something I want to invest in, surely those people who did punctuate the first printings used SOME sort of system. If a comma, colon, semi-colon and period all mean the same thing, why bother differentiating? Or was it merely because they had run out of periods, so they are using whatever type that was left over? :-) As an actor, I like to play with possibilities. Seeing as many different punctuated versions helps me make choices. Seeing NO punctuation just confuses me. Finally, if people just spelled how they thought it should be, but meant NOTHING by it, why would you spell the same word many different ways? Could there not be some meaning in choosing to spell one way or the other? Let's be clear: I DON"T think that Shakespeare dictated the spelling but whoever did set the type... does their editorial intervention, though different in intent from ours, mean nothing? As an actor, I like to play with possibilities. Seeing as many different punctuated versions helps me make choices. Seeing NO punctuation just confuses me. Maybe I should try it as an approach... Ultimately it is the words that I rely on - I think they tell me which punctuation makes sense to me. So, for my work on WT (as Antigonus"exit persued by bear") this summer, I resolve that: - I won't slavishly accept any philosophy that dictates meaning for punctuation (at least not this summer!), - I will attend to the words, but I won't worry why it might be spelled funny UNLESS I find very neighbourly words spelled differently, one from the other.(I probably won't do anything different there either - I usually to busy acting to remember that kind of detail!) "i miei due lire" (so it's really worthless...) Eric Armstrong (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 16:26:58 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0379 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation David Lindley writes: >And really that's the problem - all punctuation is coercive - whether it's >Shakespeare's, Crane's, compositor B's, or the editor's. One answer - and I >think Honigman suggests it in his Othello book, and I believe it's being tried >in at least one volume of the new Middleton - is to have no punctuation at all >and leave readers to sort it out for themselves. I'm not persuaded of this >line. And Michael Saenger writes: >Regarding Mr. Kincaid's comment on Folio punctuation. Actually, evidence (Sir >Thomas More autograph) is that Shakespeare did not punctuate at all. He didn't >need to; he was always available for questions in the theater. What was in >demand were his words, and they were very valuable, so he could best serve the >company by ignoring punctuation and writing quickly. I've recently been reading (for pleasure) *The Wasp* (Malone Society, 1074/1976), and this reprint of a play from "a unique manuscript in the Duke of Northumberland's library at Alnwick Castle" (v) certainly indicates that authorial and scribal punctuation, spelling, and punctuation could be anarchic by twentieth century standards. I'll give an example: This mad hangman, had a trick to be lukewarme in his office, & burnt a thefe in the hand wth a cold Iron; for wch it is knowne he tooke bribes & thervpon, he is privately fled the Citye, (1256-58) Yes, the sentence ends with a comma. Fused sentences, like the following in which there are two, seem to abound: "An oake is a body now a body yw all knowe belongs to the topp: the top is the head, but the husband is the head Ergo he being the head may Ritu Mariti challenge the body Armes hands," (1611-15). Though we don't know that Shakespeare's scripts came to the printer looking like this, they may well have. Yours, Bill Godshalk (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas L. Berger Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 22:47:12 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0379 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation In response to Mr. Kincaid's recent effusion, I can add little to what David Lindley has observed. Currenly I'm putting together the historical collation of 68 editions of HENRY V for the New Variorum edition, working on 5.2, where if you keep the commas, you have a very tentative and hestitant wooer in Henry with the Princess Katherine. If you drop them, then he's as slick and sly and manipulative as we're been prone to see him lately. So it goes. It would seem to me that is actors and directors want to find the "REAL" text, they would be well served to write to the Oxford Computation Center, and order up the First Folio on disk. Then they could pick a play of their choice. Then, strip out ALL the punctuation, ALL the capitalization, all the lineation, and make it into one very long paragraph. Then, using what you know about verse and prose, about meter, about a little of this, a little of that, put the play back together again. A noble venture which might yield some interesting results. Tom Berger St. Lawrence University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 10:50:23 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0384 THE MILTON TRANSCRIPTION PROJECT (MTP) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0384. Friday, 17 May 1996. From: A. E. B. Coldiron Date: Wednesday, 15 May 1996 14:56:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Milton Transcription Project Dear SHAKSPER Readers, As John Milton wrote in _Areopagitica_, "a good Booke is the pretious life-blood of a master spirit, imbalm'd and treasur'd up on purpose to a life beyond life." THE MILTON TRANSCRIPTION PROJECT is dedicated to assuring that all of Milton's poetry and prose will be available for public access on the Internet. Although most of Milton's poetry will soon become available at the Oxford Text Archive and at the University of Richmond server, most of the English and Latin prose--along with a great deal of fascinating Miltoniana-- remains to be transcribed. We invite you to join us in providing accurate scholarly transcriptions of these texts. THE MILTON TRANSCRIPTION PROJECT (MTP), currently supported by Milton-L, _Milton Quarterly_, the Computer Writing and Research Laboratory at the University of Texas at Austin, _EMLS_, and the University of Richmond's web-server, is the joint creation of volunteers from 24 colleges and universities in three countries. Volunteers may transcribe as much or as little as they wish; each transcription will be proofread, formatted, checked, and refereed. We shall acknowledge any significant contribution, and all accepted transcriptions will be credited by name. In order to volunteer, to view test sites, or to receive other information, please contact either Professor Hugh Wilson (MTP, Editor; dithw@ttacs.ttu.edu) or Professor A.E.B. Coldiron, (MTP, Internet Liaison; aec2b@virginia.edu). The only requirements are diligence, concern for accuracy, and the ability to type with one or more fingers. Volunteer: earn the intangible reward of "those whose publisht labours advance the good of mankind" (_Areopagitica_, 1644). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 10:58:30 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0385 Rushdie; Lanier Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0385. Friday, 17 May 1996. (1) From: Ted Nellen Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 11:53:06 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Rushdie at Folger (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 17:27:06 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0377 Re: ADO Explication (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ted Nellen Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 11:53:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Rushdie at Folger Greetings, In the May 13, 1996 issue of _The New Yorker_ in the "Talk of the Town" section, there is a piece titled "The Folger Preambulation". It relates Rushdie's love of Shakespeare and he provides a neat literary word game he plays. As he explains: He was challenged to rename WS plays as if they were written by Robert Ludlum. For Hamlet he gave "The Bourne Ultimatum" and "The Scarlatti Inheritance". For Macbeth he offered "The Dunsinane Deforestation". Other titles included: "The Rialto Forfeit"; "The Capulet Infatuation"; "The Kerchief Implication"; and "The Solstice Entrancement." I hope this is a fun diversion. Cheers, Ted (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 17:27:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0377 Re: ADO Explication Florence Amit; I am very interested in your paper on the Hebrew connections in MOV. How can I read it? [Send GET SHAKS HEBREW to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu --HMC] I am also interested in A. L. Rowse's theory that the Dark Lady in the sonnets was Amelia Lanier, ne Bassano. A recent book on the Bassanos (will provide name and author if anyone wishes, don't have it at the tip of my tongue) reveals that although they were originally from Venice, they were in fact Sephardic jews, and the move to the English Court was a final step in their exodus from Spain in the 1490s. Amelia Lanier has been given importance in recent feminist research and exegesis, since her book of religious poems, published in the early 1600s, is the first book to be published in English by an Englishwoman under her own name. It is also a truly feminist work in that it is dedicated to several noblewomen and not to any men, and also in that her take on the various bible stories is a truly feminist view. It is interesting that in the two serious plays where Venice is the locale, the name Amelia features in one, the name Bassanio in the other. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 11:03:41 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0386 The Macbeths; Call for Papers Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0386. Friday, 17 May 1996. (1) From: Richard W Bovard Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 15:57:14 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0378 Re: The Macbeths (2) From: Holger Klein Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 17:15:25 +0100 Subj: CFP (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard W Bovard Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 15:57:14 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0378 Re: The Macbeths I like Lowenstein's effort to connect the subject of indifference/grief to similar moments in another play. But Brutus's language over Cassius's body is an echo of his language about killing Caesar, an echo of his language about a dead Portia. Is not the recent discussion of Othello's love also our effort to approach another character's language of indifference/grief/abstraction about another dead love? I also hear the language of Octavius Caesar to his sister, lamenting the fact that he was not warned of her arrival. He missed the chance to show his love. I find his language about a living sister chilling . . . and indifferent. Surely, feminist critics have noticed the language that these male characters use to address their dead love? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Holger Klein Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 17:15:25 +0100 Subject: CFP The Shakespeare Yearbook, ed. Holger Klein, is looking for contributions to Vol. 8 (1997) "Hamlet on Screen", which will be co-edited by Dimiter Daphinoff (Fribourg). What we need are analyses of any one or more among the many versions made for the cinema or tv. The length should not exceed 25 pages including notes. The deadline for submissions is February, 1997 (hard copy and disk - IBM compatible MS DOS word for windows 6). Please send inquiries and/or exposes of projects to: Professor H. M. Klein, Department of English and American Studies, University of Salzburg, Akademiestr. 24, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria. Tel. +43-662-8044-4422; Fax +43-662-8044-613. E-mail: Holger.Klein@sbg.ac.at. Thank you very much! Yours sincerely, Holger Klein ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 11:14:55 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0388 Qs: Shakespeare and Virgil; What's in a Name? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0388. Friday, 17 May 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 21:01:33 -0400 Subj: Hector and Camilla, Shakespeare and Virgil (2) From: Wendy G. Thomas Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 09:33:28 -0700 Subj: What's in a Name? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 21:01:33 -0400 Subject: Hector and Camilla, Shakespeare and Virgil I've been reading Robert Fitzgerald's translation of the *The Aeneid* recently, and when I got to the passage where Camilla hunts Arruns for his armor and is subsequently killed in battle (XII, 763-829), I was reminded of Hector's hunting of the armor in *Troilus and Cressida* 5.6.43-44: "wilt thou not beast abide? / Why then flye on, Ile hunt thee for thy hide." The source is usually given as Lydgate and/or Caxton, but I wonder if Virgil may also have been in Shakespeare's mind: "Camilla / Began to track this man, her heart's desire / Either to fit luxurious Trojan gear / On a temple door, or else herself to flaunt / That golden plunder. Blindly, as a huntress, / Following him, and him alone, of all / Who took part in the battle, she rode on . . . ." Virgil describes Arruns' elaborate armour in detail. Of course, it's quite possible that Lydgate and Caxton were thinking of this passage in *The Aeneid* when they have Hector hunting the handsome armour of "a grekishe kinge." Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wendy G. Thomas Date: Thursday, 16 May 1996 09:33:28 -0700 Subject: What's in a Name? It is always startling to see this newsgroup sometimes use slang or casual references to William Shakespeare (i.e.,Bill Shakespeare, Billy the Shake, Will Speare, etc.) Do you have an opinion on it? I think it's much more interesting than punctuation marks.========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 10:56:48 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0389 "How all occasions do inform against me" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0389. Wednesday, 29 May 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, May 29, 1996 Subject: "How all occasions do inform against me" Dear SHAKSPEReans, Many of you I am sure are wondering what has happened to SHAKSPER. The last digest I sent out was on Friday, May 17, 1996. In the meantime, I have had a family medical emergency, the end of the semester grades due, the reaccreditation report I am responsible for due, a serious listserv crash, a mailer problem, and what seems like tons of other stuff. It will probably take me a few days to catch up. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 11:41:05 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0390 Lost Submissions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0390. Wednesday, 29 May 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, May 29, 1996 Subject: Lost Submissions Dear SHAKSPEReans, Because of technical problems and my inexperience with Unix, I appear to have lost all that was submitted to SHAKSPER@ws.BowieState.edu since Friday, May 17, 1996. I do have all messages that were sent DIRECTLY to me at HMCook@boe00.minc.umd.edu. If you do not see a message you submitted within the next two days, please accept my apologies and resubmit. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 11:46:22 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0391 Re: Riffraff; Cakes and Ale Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0391. Wednesday, 29 May 1996. (1) From: Keith Richards Date: Friday, 17 May 1996 11:01:30 -0700 Subj: Re: criminal revolutionary academic riffraff (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 17 May 1996 21:04:42 -0400 Subj: Cakes and Ale (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith Richards Date: Friday, 17 May 1996 11:01:30 -0700 Subject: Re: criminal revolutionary academic riffraff Dear Jeff Myers, I would respond to your last post off the list, as I don't think that the debate we're having is of interest to all the members, but since you want to make your points here, I'll make the counterpoint. I really do think that you are overstating your case. If you'll recall my first post on the subject, you'll remember that I did not say that an argument could not be made against some of F. Amit's points. Nor did I call P. Groves' riposte an "assault" (certainly you're stretching it by implying that I equated it with "a brutal physical attack on a defenseless victim"). What I did say was that I have been guilty of firing off poorly thought out responses to list members (comments which, compared to P. Groves', were "assaults"). What I did say was that P. Groves' response, figuring F. Amit's contribution to the list as a "joke", was inappropriate. I assume that you, like him, take issue with the points she has raised. Of course, _that_ is what the list is all about. I would like to see one of you make the case, rather than continuing to treat the subject as a joke. Perhaps if we want to continue with this e-pistle duel, we should do it off the list henceforth. Yours, Keith Richards | sgandkr@cam.org (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 17 May 1996 21:04:42 -0400 Subject: Cakes and Ale >In the interests of those who pay for internet messages by the bit--it is >pointless to repost in order to correct minor grammatical slippages. Whether >he uses the proper "I" or the common "me" we still know him to be W. Godshalk >of biblioholic fame--the meaning, unobscure, emerges despite grammar. Therefore >save the bandwidth-- >Thomas E. "TR" Ruddick Is this a joke? Isn't your communication -- sent to everyone, when addressed to me -- a waste of money for those who pay? If you want to fight with me, simply write to me directly -- and spare everyone else -- if you are in to saving money. Yours, Bill ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 11:53:03 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0392 Qs: Peter Sellars *Per.*; Woodstock Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0392. Wednesday, 29 May 1996. (1) From: David Skeele Date: Friday, 17 May 96 13:08:26 EDT Subj: Peter Sellars *Per.* (2) From: Jimmy Jung Date: Friday, 17 May 1996 6:22am Subj: Before Richard, the Second (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Friday, 17 May 96 13:08:26 EDT Subject: Peter Sellars *Per.* Dear SHAKSPERians, Please accept a query that is only tangentially related to Shakespeare. I am researching a Peter Sellars production of _Pericles_, and my work would be immeasurably enriched by the opportunity to interview Sellars. Does anyone have any idea how to reach him at the present? Gratefully, David Skeele (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jimmy Jung Date: Friday, 17 May 1996 6:22am Subject: Before Richard, the Second I've been combing through a few introductions, but can't find the level of detail I want. I know there is some buisness about Thomas of Woodstock, that professors tell me Shakespeare's audience would have "known about." Bevington refers to it as"his complicity in the death of his uncle," but I can't find out why he would have wanted him killed or any further details of the circumstances. To what extent does Woodstock's end, before the play starts, mirror Richard's death at the plays end? If you can direct me to a good source, or want to tell the story with your own spin, I would be grateful. jimmy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 12:34:04 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0397 Internet Shakespeare Proposals Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0397. Wednesday, 29 May 1996. From: Michael Best Date: Friday, 24 May 1996 11:14:45 -0700 Subject: Internet Shakespeare Proposals DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSALS TO THE INTERNET SHAKESPEARE EDITIONS 1. General Information Proposals for materials to be posted on the site of the Internet Shakespeare Editions should be submitted by email to the Coordinating Editor, Michael Best, . All proposals will be considered by the Editorial Board; if approved, the Board will appoint one or more referees to read the final documents before posting. Work in progress may be submitted for preliminary reading. Proposals may be submitted by individuals or by a group of collaborating scholars. Proposals may be for editions of the plays or poems; they may also be for the preparation of supporting documents (sources etc.) or for the development of performance materials. In the case of plays with multiple source texts, (_Hamlet_, _Lear_ etc.) both conflated and separate single text editions will be considered. All correspondence will be carried out by email, and all work in progress and final submission will be submitted on disk. Contributors should be reasonably computer literate and should have a basic knowledge of HTML (HyperText Markup Language), but will not be asked to undertake the final, detailed tagging of texts. 2. The Editions General information about what the editions will include, their structure, and the nature of the copyright retained by contributors is available at Specific guidelines for editors are currently being developed. 3. The format of the proposal All proposals should include the following: a. A brief curriculum vitae of the contributor(s) b. A statement of the contributors' general views on editorial principles c. A statement of the main editorial challenges involved in working with the specific text d. A statement of the way an electronic edition of the play might differ from a conventionally printed text e. A summary of the kinds of supporting materials that might be linked to the edition (sources, historical documents, and so on) f. A "timeline" for the completion of the project. Note that the electronic medium allows for incremental publication as work is completed. g. An indication of the expertise of the contributor(s) in the use of electronic texts and the Internet. Michael Best Department of English, University of Victoria, Victoria B.C. V8W 3W1, Canada. email: URL: Coordinating Editor, Internet Editions of Shakespeare URL: ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 12:13:11 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0393 Re: Punctuation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0393. Wednesday, 29 May 1996. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 17 May 1996 13:34:12 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0379 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation (2) From: James Schaefer Date: Friday, 17 May 1996 14:14:55 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0387 Re: Punctuation (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 17 May 1996 13:34:12 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0379 Re: Mislineation & Punctuation I was pleased to see David Lindley and Michael Baird Saenger correcting the misunderstandings about punctuation. We DO know something of Shakespeare's habits of punctuation and about the interference habits of different scribes and compositors. The categorical statements to the contrary, and the nonsense about F punctuation being a guide to speaking, must be challenged. David Lindley invites comment on his dilemma in editing The Tempest: >Should I, then, reproduce >Crane's punctuation, or should I 'thin it out' - which might be in line with >Shakespeare's habits Doesn't deciding what you're trying to (re)create precede the editing? If you want to construct some idealised autograph promptbook you go for Shakespeare's habit. If you want to reconstruct a probable King's Men promptbook you go for the habits of the company scribe, Crane. These ease with which that answer came to me convinces me there's more to this than I'm grasping. I suppose one could introduce the complication that the modern reader understands something quite different when seeing a colon than Crane meant when writing one. (And thus we're back to intentionality again.) Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Friday, 17 May 1996 14:14:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0387 Re: Punctuation If K. J. Dover is to be believed (in his *Aristophanic Comedy*), Tom Berger's suggestion that all punctuation be removed in order for each actor/director to ferret out the "real" text and its action is a close approximation of the task confronting both ancient readers and modern editors of the the Greek dramas. Dover writes (pp. 6-8): "Anyone who looks at the text of an Aristophanic play as it actually appears in the [Codex] Ravennas may be struck by the fact that whereas the speakers are indicated most of the time by abbreviations ('sigla') of their names ... there are sometimes several pages running in which no indication of the speakers' names appears at all, but only a sign (a double point or a long dash) to show that the following words are not spoken by the same person as the previous words. ... But the sign is obviously liable to be accidentally omitted or confused with some other mark of punctuation, and deficiency or instability in the indication of speakers can land us in real trouble when a dialogue involves three or four persons. Ancient fragments of dramatic texts show that this kind of inadequacy in the Ravennas is not the fault of its copyist, nor does it reflect an indifference of the period at which he was working; it is quite clear that texts of plays in the ancient world imposed on the reader a much harder task of interpretation than do modern texts, in which every speaker is unambiguously indicated by name. ... [I]t is apparent from the scholia that ancient commentators treated the assignation of the right words to the right speakers not as a matter of continuous tradition from the author's own pen but rather as a matter falling within their own province as interpreters of the transmitted text. Commentators who seem rarely or never to have considered emending the text itself evidently felt free to alter assignations. ... [T]he modern editor, grateful as he may be for information in the scholia about ancient assignations, has to do the job afresh for hinmself in the same way as they did, considering what is theatrically most plausible and what contributes to producing the most coherent picture of Aristophanes' technique." I had a similar task in preparing an opera libretto based on a play by Gertrude Stein. But while these (and Berger's suggestion, whether facetious or serious) are extreme examples, they are only exaggerations of the interpretative task we face with any playwright's work: finding the drama in the text we have been given. Jim Schaefer ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 12:24:22 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0394 EMLS Update Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0394. Wednesday, 29 May 1996. From: Joanne Woolway Date: Wednesday, 22 May 1996 13:40:44 -0400 Subject: EMLS Update EARLY MODERN LITERARY STUDIES UPDATE Dear Colleagues, You might already have seen the latest issue of EMLS (2.1) with its four articles on Shakespeare and numerous reviews. Since this issue we've added more materials to Interactive EMLS including: * An electronic post-print of John Spencer Hill's _John Milton: Poet, Priest, Prophet_ (London: Macmillan, 1979). * (With kind permission of Hardy Cook and various contributors) the SHAKSPER discussion archives, including many papers and reviews. * An electronic edition of Cawdrey's _Table Alphabeticall_ (1604) edited by Ray Siemens. * Spenser texts from Richard Bear (also at http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~rbear/index.html ). Coming shortly from iEMLS: * Conference details from "_The Faerie Queene_ in the World, 1596-1996" - a conference at the Yale Center for British Art, 26-28 September, 1996. * iEMLS is also happy to be supporting the _Milton Transcription Project_ - Watch the "current work" space! We hope that you will feel welcome to use iEMLS as a forum for work in progress and also to post papers, texts, conference details, and other resources that you think would be of use to the academic community or that you would like comment on before publishing elsewhere. If you'd like to know more about iEMLS or would like to send work for inclusion, please contact me at emls@sable.ox.ac.uk Thanks, Joanne Woolway Associate Editor, EMLS ------------------------------------------------------------------- ***ALSO FOR YOUR INFORMATION*** - EMLS's Oxford mirror site has a new URL: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~emls/emlshome.html Our UBC site is still at: http://unixg.ubc.ca:7001/0/e-sources/emls/emlshome.html ------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 12:27:23 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0395 ACTER Much Ado opening Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0395. Wednesday, 29 May 1996. From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Friday, 24 May 1996 05:57:48 -0400 Subject: ACTER Much Ado opening Thanks to all the people who gave me information about illustrations of Much Ado. We find we have a sudden cancellation on the Fall Tour of ACTER with this play, for the week of Sept. 23-29. We will be in the Tennessee-Arkansas area but will consider any offer to fill the week and we can give a good discount. Please contact me immediately if you can help us out and for more info, look at the ACTER website: http://www.unc.edu/depts/acter/ - thanks, Cynthia Dessen, Manager ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 12:30:33 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0396 Q: Rape and Comedy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0396. Wednesday, 29 May 1996. From: Jimmy Jung Date: Friday, 17 May 1996 6:47am Subject: Rapes and Comedy in DC In the last few months I've seen Washington productions of both Volpone and Two Gentlemen of Verona -- both of which have an attempted rape scene. I found the Volpone scene hard to take seriously, while the Two Gentlemen scene was suddenly very real in an otherwise funny play. ( I think someone earlier reported that the play had no gaiety, but I thought it was pretty amusing) I was wondering to what extent we are ever meant to take a rape scene "seriously" in a comedy. I almost felt Volpone was flawed because it seemed ridiculous to believe this short fat old man could over power this young woman. On the other hand, I can't help but think that the Two Gentlemen scene might not have been staged more akin to Midsummer. When Demetrius (or is it the other guy) say's "you do impeach you honesty to trust the oppurtunity of night," I never really worried about the girls safety. What about it? did SHakespeare's audience get treated to a lot of comedic rapes? that would appear to not be acceptable to today's audience. For that matter, was a scene like the rape in Titus typical? jimmy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 12:36:49 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0398 Re: Texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0398. Wednesday, 29 May 1996. From: John Drakakis Date: Monday, 27 May 1996 09:53:00 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0383 Re: Texts For Gabriel Egan. Let me take the last point first about Derrida and "originals": on the principle that no "original" can ever be present to itself, then any invocation of the term is bound to raise the question of whether an "original" is ever possible. To use the term is to invoke the law, and to disclose the conditions of its operation...hence politics. Of course, you may say that all language is prone to this failing, and that the anchoring points which sustain meaning are provisional. Ergo, "original" can never quite deliver as a term the promise that it holds out. I'm sure that irony wasn't lost on the general editors of the series. But you raise a number of larger, and, I think, more interesting questions which have to do with the status and provenance of a printed text of a play, and subsequent editions of it. Your point about the uncertainty of the conditions of composition is well taken. My only reservation is that we should be careful here not to make "performance" the "source", so to speak, in a way which is essentially no different from making print the "source". In our very literate attempts to anchor texts, to give them some stability we are, of course, in danger of imposing our expectations on them. The recent debate about whether Shakespeare "intended" to write iambic lines seems to me symptomatic of precisely this problem. On the question of terminology, it seems to me that when we deploy a particular discourse then we do invoke the very historically overdetermined means which you seem to want to screen out. I have no wish to deny an interlocutor the freedom to CONTEST meanings, but there is a very big difference between journalistic usages of terms which have, in other contexts, specialized meanings, and what I hope would be the more precise analytical discourse of literary and cultural history. Even according to your own "original" definition of "fetishization", I would be puzzled by your ascription. This is not, of course, to deny that "Shakespearean" texts are "mediated" (and I think we may agree on the meaning of this term). By using as copy-text a single copy of an early quarto with all its blemishes and inconsistencies the very effect which you seem to want is in large part achieved. What might the significance be, for example, of following the first quarto naming of Brokenbury who appears in subsequent editions of Richard III as Brakenbury? What would be the significance, say for following the first quarto naming of Corambis in Hamlet? That does precisely to the term "original" what my Derridean explanation proposes. Cheers John Drakakis ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 08:43:30 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0399 Branagh's *Midwinter's Tale* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0399. Thursday, 30 May 1996. From: Nick Clary Date: Wednesday, 29 May 1996 14:07:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Branagh's *Midwinter's Tale* Months ago, interest was expressed in Kenneth Branagh's little film entitled *The Bleak Midwinter*. Well, Vermont has just begun showing it under the American title *Midwinter's Tale*. My wife and I saw it last evening at the local movie house. There were but four of us in the theatre. Nonetheless we were an enthusiastic and responsive audience. Written by Branagh, this is an intelligent script--frequently funny, often poingnant, and fully entertaining. The characters are well drawn and played, the story is engaging, and *Hamlet* is cared for. I have no idea how many attended the other films in this cinema multiplex, but we few, we happy few will not soon forget Branagh's *Midwinter's Tale*. When the credits rolled for this low-budget, black-and-white import I was on my feet applauding. I recommend the film heartily. I will be eager to see whether Branagh's own *Hamlet* will move audiences the way the *Hamlet* in his little film moves its audience. Perhaps not everyone enjoyed it as we did or found it so wonderful. I encourage other SHAKSPER readers to share their reactions, responses and readings with us. Nick Clary ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 08:53:20 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0400 Re: Rape and Comedy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0400. Thursday, 30 May 1996. (1) From: Ed Pixley Date: Wednesday, 29 May 1996 16:18:28 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0396 Q: Rape and Comedy (2) From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 29 May 1996 16:23:11 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0396 Q: Rape and Comedy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pixley Date: Wednesday, 29 May 1996 16:18:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0396 Q: Rape and Comedy Jimmy -- Can we take the _Volpone_ rape scene seriously? You bet we can? You may have had trouble because of a casting choice or an actor's choice. I do have trouble imagining a fat Volpone, but I didn't see it. However, had you seen Douglas Campbell do the scene at the Guthrie Theatre in 1963 or 64, you would have had no doubt of Volpone's intention -- or ability -- of following through. If you read the scene aloud, you will find, I believe, that its rhythms suggest a dance of seduction, intended to mesmerize Celia. Set it to music to discover how it might work as a dance. But Volpone never knows how to quit when he's ahead, and his eloquent images and rhythms also seduce him, leading him to excesses which finally alienate Celia further rather than drawing her in. Ed Pixley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 29 May 1996 16:23:11 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0396 Q: Rape and Comedy SHORT FAT VOLPONE? Who said he is brief of stature? His vowels are large and long. Why can he not be fat and powerfully priapic? It might be noted that when my twenty year-old pudgy body played the part at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe the Ceclia ran away three days before opening night, overpowered by the manly music of the seduction scene; she was found two days later at an aunt's house, filling up on scones and cakes to comfort her fears, and brought back to the theatre agreeing to continue the role if I kept my hand inside her belt to keep her form running away again. We all put it down to the strength of the verse. Harry Hill Montreal ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 09:13:34 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0403 Qs: Background Text; Workshops Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0403. Thursday, 30 May 1996. (1) From: Jan Stirm Date: Wednesday, 29 May 1996 11:12:56 PST Subj: Texts Q. (2) From: Ramona McKean Date: Wednesday, 29 May 1996 18:58:39 PST Subj: Workshops (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jan Stirm Date: Wednesday, 29 May 1996 11:12:56 PST Subject: Texts Q. Dear SHAKSPERians, I'm in the process of wwoking out which texts to order for my (more or less) later Shakespeare class next fall. I'm planning a social/political history focus, and am thinking of using Keith Wrightson's English Society for background. I was wondering if you might have other suggestions, or if you've used Wrightson's book, you had suggestions for making it work well for students. Many thanks, Jan Stirm stirm@humnet.ucla.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ramona McKean Date: Wednesday, 29 May 1996 18:58:39 PST Subject: Workshops [This query came from person not yet a member of SHAKSPER. Please reply directly to her if you can help. --HMC] Dear Dr. Cook, I am a high school English teacher in Nanaimo, B.C., Canada who'll be travelling in England this summer, July 5- August 15. I would very much like to find a short workshop (1-5 days) on Shakespeare to take for professional development purposes. Could you possibly provide me with workshop titles, dates, locations, costs, etc. by June 10th? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 09:03:24 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0401 Re: Texts; Woodstock; Sign Seen in Window Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0401. Thursday, 30 May 1996. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 30 May 1996 00:28:43 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0398 Re: Texts (2) From: Frank Whigham Date: Wednesday, 29 May 1996 16:55:31 -0500 Subj: Before Richard II (3) From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Wednesday, 29 May 1996 21:08:58 GMT Subj: Sign Seen in Window (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 30 May 1996 00:28:43 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0398 Re: Texts John Drakakis writes > Let me take the last point first about Derrida and "originals": on > the principle that no "original" can ever be present to itself, then > any invocation of the term is bound to raise the question of > whether an "original" is ever possible. Whoosh! That one went higher over my head than the last. I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean. Is it useful to comment that "original" is one of those fascinating words that means its own opposite? Like "cleave" or "period". Am I on the right track? > To use the term is to > invoke the law, and to disclose the conditions of its > operation...hence politics. Nope, I'm still lost. > Of course, you may say that all language > is prone to this failing, and that the anchoring points > which sustain meaning are provisional. I get the second part of this sentence, and can relate it to post-Saussurean linguistics. But... > Ergo, "original" can never quite deliver as a term the >promise that it holds out. I'm sure that irony wasn't lost on the general >editors of the series. I'm only as far as understanding that "original" is one of those interesting cases where we can chart the change in meaning as part of a cultural shift (as Williams does in _Keywords_). >My only reservation is that we should >be careful here not to make "performance" the "source", so to speak, in a way >which is essentially no different from making print the "source". My accommodation to the potentially conservative notion of "intention", on the grounds that Marxists should be concerned with the dramatist's creative labour, leads me to draw a great distinction between these two possible "sources". Shakespeare undoubtedly intended performances, but not printed play-texts. The rest of your post concerns editing, and we don't disagree on the principle of the Shakespearean Originals series (ie to do diplomatic reprints), only on the quality of the execution and the silly claims made for it ("throwing cordons" around text, etc). Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frank Whigham Date: Wednesday, 29 May 1996 16:55:31 -0500 Subject: Before Richard II For more data see A. P. Rossiter's edition of the anonymous play *Woodstock*. Frank Whigham (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Wednesday, 29 May 1996 21:08:58 GMT Subject: Sign Seen in Window >From: mclellanj@umbsky.cc.umb.edu >Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 16:20:20 EST >Subject: sign seen in window > >Seen in the window of a UK sporting goods store: > >"This is the discount of our winter tent" > Martin Jukovsky Cambridge, Mass. martyj@user1.channel1.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 09:05:40 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0402 SSE October 9-14 Availability Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0402. Thursday, 30 May 1996. From: Margo McGirr Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 18:14:22 -0400 Subject: SSE October 9-14 Availability The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express has an opening in the '96 tour schedule between October 9-14. The four plays in our '96 repertory are Henry V, As You Like It, Julius Caesar and Comedy of Errors. A single performance costs just $1850 + travel, food and lodging for the twelve member company. (On campus facilities are acceptable.) We will be in the Vermont area making our way toward Cape Cod. Any organization interested in booking the SSE or finding out more about the company may contact Margo McGirr, former Cleopatra, current Booking Coordinator (Do you suppose that's a demotion?) at (540) 434-3366 or at this address. Thanks- Margo ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 10:45:45 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0404 Important Message from SHAKSPER's Editor Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0404. Friday, 31 May 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, May 31, 1996 Subject: Important Message from SHAKSPER's Editor Dear SHAKSPEReans, Yesterday, while trying to fix the remaining problem from the recent LISTSERV crash, I inadvertently trashed the SHAKSPER membership list. After hours of e-mail exchanges with the author of LISTSERV, I had no choice but to reconstruct completely that membership list -- meaning I had to add manually all 1241 of you back. I did lose two or three members whose accounts were set to CONCEAL, but I'm trying to get them back. The biggest problem with what happened is that now everyone's account is set to the MAIL option. As a result, some of you will be hearing from SHAKSPER today for the first time in some time. I apologize for intruding if you had wanted to remain on the NOMAIL option, but I have no other choice with the nature of the problem I just had. I will have to ask everyone's indulgence while I try to put things right. Let me review the options members have and ask that you make any changes that are appropriate. UNSUBscribing: If you no longer want to be a member of SHAKSPER, please UNSUBscribe. To do so, send this -- SIGNOFF SHAKSPER to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, leaving the subject line blank. SETting NOMAIL: If you do not want to receive SHAKSPER mailings at this time, then SET your SHAKSPER account to NOMAIL. To do this, send the following message -- SET SHAKSPER NOMAIL to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, again leaving the subject line blank. When you want to resume your SHAKSPER mailings, send -- SET SHAKSPER MAIL -- to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu. SETting to DIGEST: If you would like to receive SHAKSPER in a single daily digest, then SET your SHAKSPER account to DIGEST. To do this, send the following message -- SET SHAKSPER DIGEST to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, again leaving the subject line blank. If you want to change FROM Digest TO Regular Mailings, then SET your SHAKSPER account to INDEX. To do this, send the following -- SET SHAKSPER INDEX -- to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu. SETting to REPRO: If you would like to receive confirmation of your posting, then send -- SET SHAKSPER REPRO - to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu. See Your SHAKSPER Options: Send -- QUERY SHAKSPER -- to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu. If you would like a list of SHAKSPER LISTSERV commands, send -- GET LISTSERV COMMAND -- to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu. Note that these commands are NOT "case-sensitive." In other words, LISTSERV doesn't care WHAT case you use, just the characters used. I assume that it will take me a few days to clean up this mess, so you can expect that SHAKSPER mailings will resume by Monday, June 3. Again, I apologize for any inconvenience, and if you have other questions or problems, contact me: HMCook@boe00.minc.umd.edu.========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 08:19:32 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0405 Re: Branagh's *Midwinter's Tale* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0405. Saturday, 1 June 1996. (1) From: Thomas E. Ruddick Date: Thursday, 30 May 96 10:25:45 EST Subj: RE: SHK 7.0399 Branagh's *Midwinter's Tale* (2) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 30 May 96 11:43:15 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0399 Branagh's *Midwinter's Tale* (3) From: Laura Cerrato Date: Thursday, 30 May1996 11:27:01 ARG3 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0399 Brangh's *Midwinter's Tale* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas E. Ruddick Date: Thursday, 30 May 96 10:25:45 EST Subject: RE: SHK 7.0399 Branagh's *Midwinter's Tale* I also saw "Midwinter's Tale" among a crowd of five at an art theatre. The film critic at the Dayton (OH) Daily News had taken the film down hard, claiming that as a comedy it wasn't funny-- Personally I found it enjoyable but I wonder about the degree of pleasure that a non-theatre person would experience. Lots of the interest, for me, came from the recognition of theatre "types" in the main characters-- perhaps these are "stock" characters only to theatre people? (My companion, not a theatre person, enjoyed the film--but she's prone to understand much of those things from having hung around with me). I found the ending of the film totally unsatisfactory and grating on my sensibilities, and would have preferred that Branagh stopped the film right after the wildly enthusiastic reception of _Hamlet_ --skipping all of the tidy wrap-ups for the sub-plots, etc. Thomas E. Ruddick, Edison (OH) Community College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 30 May 96 11:43:15 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0399 Branagh's *Midwinter's Tale* I'd like to second Nick Clary's enthusiastic response to *A Midwinter's Tale,* which played here in sophisticated Minneapolis for all of _one week_ at the local art multi-plex and then disappeared completely. I usually don't see first run films, but I had a feeling this might happen. The audience at the show I attended with two friends was also very enthusiastic (and somewhat larger than Nick's!). I found the film wonderfully entertaining as someone with a passion for both theater in general and Shakespeare in particular. I also thought that Branagh did a great job weaving the work of theater with the lives of the people producing it. The film has great wit and offers very loving appreciation of what live theater, in any venue, is all about. I also appreciated his "take" on what success means in Hollywood terms. If you can't see it on the big screen, no doubt a video release is somewhere in the future--and this is certainly a film that will work well in that format too. Chris Gordon (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Cerrato Date: Thursday, 30 May 1996 11:27:01 ARG3 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0399 Branagh's *Midwinter's Tale* I fully agree with you. I saw it some months ago by cable TV in Buenos Aires and at first I thought it was an old film. I have just realized my mistake, now that it is about to be shown commercially in Argentina. I am recommending it to my students, and I hope I'll be able to buy the cassette. Laura Cerrato ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 08:26:49 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0406 Re: Punctuation; Texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0406. Saturday, 1 June 1996. (1) From: David Knauer Date: Thursday, 30 May 1996 07:50:52 -0500 (EST) Subj: Punctuation (2) From: Thomas L. Berger Date: Thursday, 30 May 1996 14:29:29 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0393 Re: Punctuation (3) From: David Lindley Date: Friday, 31 May 1996 10:21:09 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0398 Re: Texts (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Knauer Date: Thursday, 30 May 1996 07:50:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Punctuation For those interested in reading further about punctuation and speech prefixes as they relate to notions of literary "character," see Bruce R. Smith's "Prickly Characters" and Linda McJannet's "Elizabethan Speech Prefixes: Page Design, Typography, and Mimesis," both in David M. Bergeron's _Reading and Writing in Shakespeare_ (U of Delaware, 1996). David J. Knauer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas L. Berger Date: Thursday, 30 May 1996 14:29:29 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0393 Re: Punctuation In reply to Jim Schaefer, regarding texts, and the stripping down of them, let me say first that I am a facetious fellow but I was not being facetious when I suggested stripping a text of its punctuation, capitalization, and lineation and then putting it back together again. I am not a good playgoer. Often I tend to drift (Mae West: they used to call me Snow White, but I've drifted) when I'm at a Shakespeare production. This is no one's fault but my own. Often when I'm at a production of a play that I teach regularly, I can literally "find the text" as I listen, I can see it on the left hand column of a verso page in the Riverside Shakespeare. This is not healthy, but I suggest this is what some of us do out of being acclimitized to certain texts in certain forms. Try it. Strip a scene, strip a speech. Then wait a week and put it back together again. You may discover that one comma here means that you have to have another comma there, that if you end one clause here, it separates it from another clause there. And you may see that all those editors, from ROWE on, and those compositors of the early texts, are very much guiding, whether we know it or not, our interpretations of the texts we read. I think. tom berger (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Friday, 31 May 1996 10:21:09 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0398 Re: Texts John Drakakis writes that the debate about iambic lines exposes the 'danger of imposing our expectations on' the text. Gabriel Egan suggests that decisions about punctuation depend upon prior assumptions about the kind of text one assumes one is trying to recreate. The editor of a modernised text is, however, not simply 'recreating' a lost original (whatever that might mean) but is actively engaged in a process of translation. No such text, then, can 'reproduce' a particular kind of copy (it's the overstated claims to perform precisely this task which fuels the debate about the Shakespeare Originals series), and therefore inevitably the expectations of the editor will colour the act of editing. But, on the other hand, every one of us presumably engages in proof-reading our publications - we know that typesetters make mistakes. So too, as readers of modern publications (or postings to this list) we 'correct' typographical errors as we read (though those 'errors' may be the result of carelessness, indifference or ignorance on the part of writer or publisher - and may be intentional or unintentional). Accepting that the vagaries of textual transmission in the Early Modern Period are likely to produce a large number of such errors, an editor is engaged in a complex version of just such a basic task. Performers have licence to remake texts - and 'imposing their own expectations' is what they habitually (and probably rightly) do. Editions are a kind of performance - but seek, by the application of rational deduction to the processes of textual transmission, to minimise that imposition. It's the slide from 'recreation' to 'creation' - and editions inevitably do both - that has to be as carefully and conscientiously monitored as possible? A limit case might be the famous 'scamels' that Caliban promises to get for Stephano and Trinculo. No-one knows what they are; it's the only known use of the word. Purely pragmatically one might think that this is a misprint, deriving perhaps from scribe or compositor mistranscribing the 'original'. Hypotheses are legion, yet most editors confine speculation to the notes, since there is no compelling argument for a particular change - whereas all editors happily assume that the line 'Save for the son that he did litter here' embodies a typographical error, and change 'he' to 'she'. (If anyone out there has the killer emendation of, or explanation for, 'scamels' I'd be delighted to know!) David Lindley ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 08:40:41 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0407 Qs: Shakespeare Parodies; Volpone Video Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0407. Saturday, 1 June 1996. (1) From: Michiko Suematsu Date: Friday, 31 May 1996 10:38:34 +0900 Subj: Shakespeare's parodies (2) From: Jesus Cora Date: Friday, 31 May 1996 15:34:55 UTC+0100 Subj: Q: Any Volpone on video? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michiko Suematsu Date: Friday, 31 May 1996 10:38:34 +0900 Subject: Shakespeare's parodies Dear SHAKSPERians, I'm in the process of listing up the modern parodies and adaptations of Shakespeare such as Bond's Lear and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. I was wondering if you might suggest any title (plays, novels, poems, or any written texts). The recommendation of any book which deals with this area would be also greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Michiko Suematsu sue@si.gunma-ac.jp [You should probably start with these two files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: SPINOFF BIBLIO A bibliography of poems, novels, plays, and films inspired by Shakespeare's life and works.Begun by Lawrence Schimel; updated by Hardy Cook. Additions welcome. CHARACTR BIBLIO A bibliography of works in which Shakespeare figures as a character. Begun by Lawrence Schimel; updated by Hardy Cook. Additions welcome. To order, send the following to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu: GET SPINOFF BIBLIO GET CHARACTR BIBLIO --HMC] (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Friday, 31 May 1996 15:34:55 UTC+0100 Subject: Q: Any Volpone on video? Dear SHAKSPEReans, Does any of you know of any version of *Volpone*, or, indeed, any play by Jonson, that is available on video? Thanks. J. Cora U. of Alcala de Henares fmjca@filmo.alcala.es ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 08:14:01 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0408 Re: Shakespeare Parodies Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0408. Sunday, 2 June 1996. (1) From: Terry Ross Date: Saturday, 1 Jun 1996 12:09:13 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Shakespeare Parodies (2) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Saturday, 1 Jun 1996 11:52:58 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0407 Qs: Shakespeare Parodies (3) From: Doyne Mraz Date: Saturday, 1 Jun 1996 18:03:44 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0407 Q: Shakespeare Parodies (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry Ross Date: Saturday, 1 Jun 1996 12:09:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Shakespeare Parodies W. S. Gilbert (sans Sullivan) wrote a superior *Rosencrantz and Guildenstern* long before Tom Stoppard. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Saturday, 1 Jun 1996 11:52:58 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0407 Qs: Shakespeare Parodies Dear Friends and Colleagues, This message is directed at Michiko Suematsu, regarding his recent query about Shakespeare parodies. Our indefatigable Hardy Cook is quite correct to indicate the SHAKSPER Listserve Spinoff Bibliography. Some other works that might be of use are: Cohn, Ruby. *Modern Shakespearean Offshoots*. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976. A classic early statement. McKernan, Luke and Olwen Terris, eds. *Walking Shadows: Shakespeare in the National Film and Television Archive*. London: British Film Institute Publishing, 1994. A remarkable book, listing many parodies and burlesques that happen to be in the British Film Institute. Michael Dobson also edited unit 22 of the *Shakespeariana* microfiche collections, which is titled Adaptations and Acting Editions--distinctly worth a look. Finally, I urge you to be cautious in your use of the term "parody" as that term tends to get sticky. Good luck! Regards, Bradley Berens Dept. of English UC Berkeley (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Doyne Mraz Date: Saturday, 1 Jun 1996 18:03:44 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0407 Q: Shakespeare Parodies What do you have? Do you want things like "The Abridged Shakespeare"? --AKTR ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 08:24:09 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0409 Re: Volpone Video Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0409. Sunday, 2 June 1996. (1) From: Stephen Orgel Date: Saturday, 1 Jun 1996 09:54:32 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0407 Q: Volpone Video (2) From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Saturday, 1 Jun 1996 17:21:36 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0407 Q: Volpone Video (3) From: John F. Keogh Date: Sunday, 2 Jun 1996 12:04:21 +1000 Subj: Re: Volpone Video (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Orgel Date: Saturday, 1 Jun 1996 09:54:32 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0407 Q: Volpone Video In reply to Jesus Cora, there is a superb French film of Volpone, with a full Comedie Francaise cast including the great Louis Jouvet as Mosca and Harry Bauer as Volpone, made in 1938 or so. This is the Stefan Zweig adaptation re-adapted by Jules Romains, and it's an absolute knockout. It's available from Facets in Chicago--or at least it was several years ago. Stephen Orgel Department of English Stanford University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Saturday, 1 Jun 1996 17:21:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0407 Q: Volpone Video The only Jonson drama available on video (to my knowledge) is of Volpone, and in two versions. There is a French production from 1939, that has a charming Volpone and adds a prologue to the play; the video transfers I've seen of this film, however, are of very poor quality. And there is Joseph Mankiewicz's free adaptation of the play, *The Honey Pot* (1967), with Rex Harrison (as Mr. Fox) and Cliff Robertson (as Mr. McFly); Maggie Smith plays the Celia character. *The Honey Pot* strays far from the play at the end, but it captures some of the decadent spirit of Jonson's work. Both videos were available a while back from Commedia dell'Arte. About three years ago, videos were available of Cleveland State's production of Jonson's *Oberon*. This was a very enjoyable production of the masque, and the tape also included some commentary on masquing. Jonsonians will also be interested to know that *The Spanish Lady*, Elgar's unfinished opera based upon Jonson's *The Devil is an Ass,* was available as a bonus CD with a recent issue of *BBC Music Magazine* (volume 4, no. 2). This is the only recording of this work. I hope this is helpful, Douglas Lanier (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John F. Keogh Date: Sunday, 2 Jun 1996 12:04:21 +1000 Subject: Re: Volpone Video I think the B.B.C. may have "The Alchemist" on tape. A very funny play and an excellent production as I remember. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 08:27:00 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0410 Re: Shakespeare's Hebrew: Farewell Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0410. Sunday, 2 June 1996. From: Florence Amit Date: Sunday, 02 Jun 1996 00:20:51 +0300 Subject: Farewell Dear SHAKSPERians, I must say farewell to you. The sort of additions that I have been able to make to your discussions whether desired or not, will cease. I wish to return to my creative work. I have made an effort to inform you that it is to your benefit to investigate Shakespeare's Hebrew: the folklore and the words. I propose that a kind of open lexicon be available in the electronic conference for the additions and the organization of entries and with ready access to all. With the right computer technology this need not be a too time consuming project for the Hebraist who will be editor. Of course any purpose beyond the modest interpreting of texts must be suspect. No authorship controversy should mar the straight-forward investigations of meanings. However it may be viable to refer to Hebrew writings and historical personages in a restricted way. I will cooperate with any one who desires it in order to get this service started. It is a very suggestive topic. Since the writing of my listserve essay I have noticed many additional words. Like, for instance a meaning for Banquo. In Hebrew it is Ben Cho meaning 'any how', indicating that Macbeth's efforts to interrupt Banquo's dynasty is in vain. It is certainly an ironical comment and one worth knowing. My more important project which is to see a revised version of "The Merchant of Venice" actually produced must I guess, be taken to another forum. I hope that I will be still alive when it comes to pass. If any of you care to read some of my arguments on the matter they may find a few in the defunct Shakespeare Web, Interpretations section. Query: Mar. 8, 1996 "Why take a pound of flesh ..." (I am Pericles in these discussions because of an unwelcome posting.) and Query: Feb.5, 1996 "What are the differences between the notorious 'blood libel' and Shylock's pound of flesh?" I wish all of you good luck and thank you for your allowing me to evesdrop on the professors. Florence Amit ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 20:03:04 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0411 Re: Volpone Video; Scamels and Skim-alls Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0411. Monday, 3 June 1996. (1) From: Harry Hill Date: Sunday, 02 Jun 1996 09:38:04 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0409 Re: Volpone Video (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 02 Jun 1996 23:28:17 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0406 Re: Texts (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 03 Jun 1996 16:32:06 -0400 Subj: Scamels and Skim-alls (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Sunday, 02 Jun 1996 09:38:04 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0409 Re: Volpone Video Donald Wolfit made a sterling Fox on BBC in the late fifties; I have since been unable to imagine a Volpone without those eyebrows and those cheekbones, let alone that blueberry cordial of a voice so capable of conniving and beguiling. His eyes could be cold as any but always held a hint of vulnerability that lent depth to villainy, especially useful instruments for roles such as the devil mayor in von Kleist's *Der Zerbrochene Krug*. I was an assitant assistant assistant stage manager then, and remember the theatrical knight's careful inspection of the set and everyone else's props before performances. One evening I got to hold his umbrella for him on the walk back to the Caledonian Hotel with his wife Rosalind Iden, and in my pimply adolscence replied to his inquiry about how I enjoyed the play with a precocious "Well, it isn't really the best translation, is it?"---to which he replied, grabbing his brollie from me, "Nonsense! It's brilliant!". This attitude to the public's attempt to untheatricalize the theatre has stayed with me, I'm glad to say. What colour left the stage when Sir Donald died. Harry Hill (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 02 Jun 1996 23:28:17 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0406 Re: Texts David Lindley writes: >A limit case might be the famous 'scamels' that Caliban promises to get for >Stephano and Trinculo. No-one knows what they are; it's the only known use of >the word. Purely pragmatically one might think that this is a misprint, >deriving perhaps from scribe or compositor mistranscribing the 'original'. >Hypotheses are legion. . . . I was reading Thoreau's *Cape Cod* a few weeks ago and noticed the word "skim all" for an oyster shell -- as I recall -- that's used for skimming. Is it possible that "scamel" is a form of "Skimall"-- i.e., oyster. So the "Young scamels from the rocks" (2.2.172) would then be young oysters. Frank Kermode's note (Arden ed.) reads in part: "It is not yet impossible that this tedious argument will be settled by evidence that scamel is after all a shellfish" (68). What we need is a British (rather than American) use of "skimall" for oyster and a variant spelling "scamel." Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 03 Jun 1996 16:32:06 -0400 Subject: Scamels and Skim-alls In my last posting on scamels and skim-alls, I suggested that "skim-alls" were oysters. But let me quoted the passage from *Cape Cod* in volume 4 of *The Writings of Henry David Thoreau* (Boston: Hougton Mifflin, 1906): "their women had got a better skimmer than they {in italics, i.e., peddlars} could make, in the shell of their clams; it was shaped just right for this purpose.--They call them 'skim-alls' in some places" (86). Now that I look at this passage closely, it seems a good bet that the "skim-alls" are the shells of the clams, not the clams themselves, and certainly NOT oysters! Of course, synecdochically, "skim-all" might refer to a clam with a certain kind of shell. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 20:14:10 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0412 Re: Shakespeare Parodies Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0412. Monday, 3 June 1996. (1) From: Suzanne Lewis Date: Monday, 3 Jun 1996 11:56:23 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0407 Qs: Shakespeare Parodies (2) From: June Schlueter Date: Monday, 03 Jun 1996 16:55:50 -0500 (CDT) Subj: RE: SHK 7.0407 Qs: Shakespeare Parodies (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Suzanne Lewis Date: Monday, 3 Jun 1996 11:56:23 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0407 Qs: Shakespeare Parodies To Michiko and Hardy both: No list of Shakespeare parodies is complete without mention of The Reduced Shakespeare Company's performance of *The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged)*. It's quite a romp! For more info, see their web site at: http://www.verstek.com/REDUCED/index.html Enjoy! Suzanne Lewis lewis@syspac.com (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: June Schlueter Date: Monday, 03 Jun 1996 16:55:50 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: SHK 7.0407 Qs: Shakespeare Parodies Ruby Cohn's Modern Shakespearean Offshoots is a good place to start. June Schlueter ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 20:20:08 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0413 Wars of the Roses; Q/W/E/R/T/Y Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0413. Monday, 3 June 1996. (1) From: Lori M Culwell <6500lmc1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> Date: Sunday, 2 Jun 1996 14:27:32 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Wars of the Roses (2) From: Bertrand Rouge Date: Monday, 3 Jun 1996 17:24:39 +0100 Subj: Q/W/E/R/T/Y (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lori M Culwell <6500lmc1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> Date: Sunday, 2 Jun 1996 14:27:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Wars of the Roses I'm working on an article on Peter Hall and the RSC, and would like to know of any articles/ books/ videotapes on the Hall/ Barton collaboration "Wars of the Roses". Any information would be of interest. Thanks Lori Culwell Department of Dramatic Art University of California, Santa Barbara (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bertrand Rouge Date: Monday, 3 Jun 1996 17:24:39 +0100 Subject: Q/W/E/R/T/Y [The message below arrived from a non-member. Interested persons should respond directly to Professor Rouge, mentioning SHAKSPER. --HMC] Dear Prof. Cook, I edit every year an issue of Q/W/E/R/T/Y, a French journal of English and American Studies, devoted to the syllabus of the French Agregation, which is a highly competitive national exam in France. This year the Shakespeare play on the syllabus is Hamlet, and I'm looking for scholars willing to write a scholarly article for the journal by the first week of september 1996... (for publication in late october 1996) Maximum length is 50,000 characters (MLA Style sheet) and the Journal is indexed in the MLA bibliography. Browsing through the existing lists on the net, I happened on SHAKSPER and your address. I would be grateful if you could help me in any way. Of course, I can give you further information whenever you wish. Sincerely, Bertrand Rouge Universite de Pau ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 20:29:24 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0414 Fahrenheit *Merchant of Venice* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0414. Monday, 3 June 1996. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 02 Jun 1996 23:07:10 -0400 Subject: Fahrenheit *Merchant of Venice* On Friday, May 31, the Fahrenheit Theatre Company opened its run of *The Merchant of Venice* to enthusiastic applause. Directed by Jasson Minadakis, set in twentieth century Italy, the action takes place in the center of the audience -- theatre in the square, if you will. Center stage is composed of three superimposed, tiled squares, at right angles to each other, the two internal squares elevated, the third square to about three feet. The actors enter from the north, south, east, and west. The action begins with Antonio mounting to the inner square while the entire case circulates around him. As they withdraw and he's alone, he begins, "In sooth, I know not why I am so sad." Nicholas Rose's Antonio is definitely not sad because he has a homosexual attachment to Bassanio (C. Charles Scheeren). Rose's Antonio is obviously troubled, possibly because, in this production, every time he reaches out to someone, he is rejected in some way. Marni Penning plays a blond, elegantly dressed Portia -- black pants suit and gold jewelry, supported by her sister Lisa Penning as Nerissa. If Venice is a city of business activity, Portia's Belmont is a place where Portia and Nerissa are preoccupied with discussing and processing an international "trade" in suitors. The Penning sisters are excellent in creating an atmosphere where love is subordinate to the desire for the Golden Fleece. Sheeren's Bassanio does little to dispel this atmosphere. He and Gratiano do not come across as vibrant Italian lovers -- and more than usual, I wonder what Portia and Nerissa see in these two, easily duped and manipulated husbands? William Sweeney's Shylock is tall, thin, and ascetic -- with a Vandyke beard -- a dapper, well-dressed businessman. In his first scene with Antonio and Bassanio, his rancor is subordinate, and the negotiations are basically carried on with good humor. Shylock smiles. This production emphasizes that Shylock turns vicious only after the elopement of Jessica. At the same time, the anti-Semitism and general xenophobia of the Italian Christian community is underscored. Khristopher Lewin presents a rabid anti-Semite, who hates all Jews including Jessica. He discourages by gesture Lorenzo (Richard Kelly) from eloping with her =96 his "infidel." Jim Stump's Solanio is especially offensive in his caricature of Shylock. Chris Reeder's Launcelot Gobbo, of course, recurrently points to Jessica's Jewishness. And Portia's "Let all of his complexion choose me so" (2.7.79) fits into the xenophobic pattern. Minadakis has not minimized this (troubling) aspect of the action. Richard Kelly and Jeanne Gibowicz play a very ambiguous Lorenzo and Jessica. It appears that they are not ardent young lovers. Jessica is hesitant, and Lorenzo is rather cool and distant. (An auditor sitting behind me said, "I don't think this marriage is going to last." Quite right.) Bassanio's choice of caskets is played straight -- with no song to rhyme with "lead" ("Tell me where is fancy bred,/Or in the heart or in the head?"), and no sub rosa gestures by Nerissa to indicate the right casket to Bassanio. The trial scene makes good use of the square stage. The Duke is elevated about twenty feet above center stage (and to the south). Antonio, disheveled, sits to the west, and Shylock, still cool and dapper, to the east. Each is spotlighted. The other characters are positioned behind the audience, except when needed. Portia, a small, prim man in glasses, begins her presentation in the north. As she speaks, the audience hears murmurs from Solanio and Gratiano (and perhaps others). At the crucial moment, Shylock holds the bare-breasted Antonio on the top square of the stage and contemplates stabbing him -- Portia or no Portia. When he finally drops the knife, Antonio picks it up and considers, in turn, stabbing Shylock. Antonio's words to the Duke are not spoken in tones of Christian forgiveness. And when Shylock's Star of David is torn from his neck, Antonio puts it in his pocket -- for later use. One anomaly of this production is that Salerio is female (Toni Brotons-Goodney). In the final scene, she enters on Antonio's arm -- and it appears that Antonio will not be left alone at play's end. But not so: Salerio is claimed by Solanio. Antonio then reaches out to Jessica -- handing her Shylock's Star of David. Jessica rejects the ambiguous gift, turns, and leaves, while Lorenzo stares coldly into Antonio's face. As Lorenzo goes, Antonio's face is filled with anguish -- and the lights go out. I found this a very affecting as well as puzzling moment. Does Antonio hand her the Star to remind her that she is still Jewish even if she is married to a Christian? Or does he reach out, ineptly, one more time, and is this his final rejection? Richard Arthur and Chris Reeder play a variety of rolls. Arthur plays Old Gobbo, Balthasar, and the Duke; Reeder, young Gobbo, Tubal, and the Gaoler. They remain busy creating a population for the play. The production runs until June 16 at the Aronoff Center in downtown Cincinnati. (Fahrenheit Theatre Company: 513-559-0642). I give it all four stars, and say, "Highly recommended." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 09:23:44 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0415 The Rhetoric of the SHAKSPER List; Shakespeare's Hebrew Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0415. Wednesday, 5 June 1996. (1) From: Michael Best Date: Monday, 3 Jun 1996 08:38:56 -0700 Subj: The Rhetoric of the SHAKSPER List (2) From: Susan Mather Date: Tuesday, 4 Jun 1996 14:11:46 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0410 Re: Shakespeare's Hebrew: Farewell (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Best Date: Monday, 3 Jun 1996 08:38:56 -0700 Subject: The Rhetoric of the SHAKSPER List Recent postings by and about Hebrew and Shakespeare have been another reminder that one subscriber's cheerful joke/irony is another's insult. (Linda Hutcheon has written intelligently about communities of irony in Essays in Canadian Irony). The point is that our list (Shakespeare's fault of course) is unusual in two ways: it has attracted very wide participation from different countries and vocations (each of which will have its own community of irony); and (as that last very formal semicolon shows) those who participate tend to put on jacket and tie before writing. The normal rhetoric of email allows (even enjoys) finger fumbles and typos, and relies on the informality of dashes and sentence fragments. Most postings on SHAKSPER in contrast seem to have been put through the spell check first, and we are all conscious of the beady eyes of all those academic proofreaders combing through our comments checking the commas. In fairness, however, we should take credit from the fact that as a group there has been relatively little flaming. We are more likely to be bored (doused?) by those who won't let go of a topic than inflamed by those who become intemperate. Perhaps one way of anticipating the real embarrassment of those who find that they are (or seem to be) the subject of intemperance/irony would be for Hardy to create a warning label on the bottle (we North Americans are very keen on them). In the material that each new subscriber gets, there could be a prominent statement requesting temperance and tolerance, and pointing out that the range of the list means that one writer's humour may be another's bad taste. In this suggestion there is buried a plea: don't lose humour. Whether we indulge in intellectual discourse at the highest levels or post a query about Elizabethan travelling flea circuses, let's remember that the list will only survive if we enjoy reading. And let's keep our expectations of correctness (grammatical, political) under control. Michael Best Department of English, University of Victoria, (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Tuesday, 4 Jun 1996 14:11:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0410 Re: Shakespeare's Hebrew: Farewell I just wanted to say--I will miss Florence Amit. Good Luck! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 09:29:48 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0416 Re: Wars of the Roses Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0416. Wednesday, 5 June 1996. (1) From: Norman J. Myers Date: Tuesday, 4 Jun 1996 08:17:15 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0413 Wars of the Roses (2) From: Paul Nelsen Date: Tuesday, 4 Jun 1996 09:47:32 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0413 Wars of the Roses (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman J. Myers Date: Tuesday, 4 Jun 1996 08:17:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0413 Wars of the Roses Lori Culwell-- This is going to sound like self-promotion, and perhaps it is, but I have an article. "Finding 'Heaps of Jewels' in 'Lesser' Shakespeare: Richard Duke of York and The Wars of the Roses" which is in press with the current volume of the NEW ENGLAND THEATRE JOURNAL. "Richard Duke of York" was an adaptation of Henry VI plays, mostly part 2, designed for Edmund Kean and performed at Drury Lane for seven performances in 1817. "Wars", of course, you already know. There are striking similarities in the rationales given for their adaptations by each adapter in the prefaces to the published editions. If you're interested I can send you a copy by snail-mail, or as an attachment to an e-mail if I can figure out how to use the latter. Norman J. Myers Theatre Department Bowling Green State University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Nelsen Date: Tuesday, 4 Jun 1996 09:47:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0413 Wars of the Roses Gentle readers, Lori M Culwell recently put this request forward: >I'm working on an article on Peter Hall and the RSC, and would like to know of >any articles/ books/ videotapes on the Hall/ Barton collaboration "Wars of the >Roses". Any information would be of interest. The most thorough chronicle of the project is Richard Pearson's book, This 1990 paperback (113 pages) is published by The Adelphi Press, 4-6 Effie Road, London SW6 1TD. It may be hard to locate a copy in the USA. Sally Beauman's THE ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY: A HISTORY OF TEN DECADES will also provide useful commentary. Paul Nelsen Marlboro College ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 09:38:36 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0417 Re: Scamels and Skim-alls Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0417. Wednesday, 5 June 1996. From: Steve Sohmer Date: Tuesday, 4 Jun 1996 09:10:39 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0411 Re: Scamels and Skim-alls B.Godshalk's skim-all scamels sounded fishy to me until I remembered the start of Julius Caesar. "Start" is a New England survival for "stem" or "sprout." This definition was more familiar in Elizabethan times, and is what Shakespeare had in mind when he wrote: "Ye Gods, it doth amaze me, A man of such a feeble temper should So get the start of the Maiesticke world, And beare the Palme alone." Steve Sohmer ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 09:42:10 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0418 Re: Fahrenheit *Merchant of Venice* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0418. Wednesday, 5 June 1996. From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Tuesday, 4 Jun 1996 12:09:51 PST Subject: SHK 7.0414 Fahrenheit *Merchant of Venice* Godshalk lavishes praise on a production of "Merchant of Venice" that appears to be a rather trite example of a contemporary director who finds Shakespeare's play inadequate and prefers to substitute his own. To give a single example, Godshalk says the production "emphasizes that Shylock turns vicious only after the elopement of Jessica." He should have said "pretends" rather than "emphasizes." Otherwise, what is the point of the lines, "If I can catch him once upon the hip, / I will feed fat the ancient grudge I bear him"? Best, Dan Lowenstein UCLA Law School ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 09:50:25 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0419 Renaissance Promptbooks Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0419. Wednesday, 5 June 1996. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 18 May 1996 18:12:50 -0400 Subject: Renaissance Promptbooks In his edition of *Antony and Cleopatra*, John S. Wilders asserts Shakespeare's "prompter" would have remedied the omitted names in Shakespeare's entry directions "when he prepared the script for performance" (76). He quotes Greg's phrase "indefinite and permissive stage directions" and says that these and similar "features point strongly to the author's manuscript as copy for setting the Folio text" of *Antony and Cleopatra* (78). It seems to me that these comments fly in the face of recent research into Renaissance playbooks done by Bill Long, Leslie Thomson, and others. Renaissance bookkeepers (i.e., Wilders' "prompters") apparently did not "clean up" a script before performance. Mistakes of the kind mentioned by Wilders were usually left uncorrected. And Greg's assumptions about what a playbook would look like (even though he himself had worked with these playbooks) are generally not founded on facts. My questions are these: did Wilders simply ignore Long and Thomson in preparing his comments on the text? Or are his comments tacit rejections of the Long-Thomson research? In any case, neither Long nor Thomson appears in Wilders index or references. Further, Wilders concludes that the features he has noted "point strongly to the author's manuscript as the copy used for setting the Folio text, as do certain distinctively Shakespearean spellings, especially the predominant use of 'oh' instead of the shorter 'o' noted by the Oxford editors (Wells, *Companion*, 142)" (78). The correct page reference to Wells is 549 (not 142 which is a page of the Works Cited), and here Wells writes: "the predominance of the longer 'oh' spelling violates Shakespeare's apparent preference, and may point to some sort of transcript of foul papers" (Wells 549). If I am reading Wilders correctly, he seems to be claiming Wells's support for a position that Wells does not hold. I haven't read any reviews of Wilders' edition. Wait a minute, did the TLS review include this edition? If so, I did. But from my brief use of the edition today, it doesn't seem very reliable. Do you know Wilders? I've been trying to find his email address all day -- with no luck. He seems to be gone from Middlebury. Yours, Bill Godshalk [See the Fall 1995 *Shakespeare Newsletter* (45.3, 226) pages 49, 58-60, 63. --HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 15:01:10 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0420 Renaissance Drama Video; McKellen Screenplay Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0420. Thursday, 6 June 1996. (1) From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Wednesday, 5 Jun 1996 12:52:26 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Renaissance Drama Video (2) From: Janis Lull Date: Wednesday, 05 Jun 1996 09:58:35 -0700 Subj: McKellen Screenplay (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Wednesday, 5 Jun 1996 12:52:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Renaissance Drama Video Those who teach non-Shakespearean Renaissance drama may be interested in recording the BBC production of Middleton and Rowley's *The Changeling*, which appeared on BRAVO! last night. The production starred Elizabeth McGovern, Bob Hoskins, and Hugh Grant and was, IMHO, quite imaginative and compelling. The show will air again on BRAVO! on June 29 at 7 PM EST and June 30 at 12:30 EST. Cheers, Douglas Lanier (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Janis Lull Date: Wednesday, 05 Jun 1996 09:58:35 -0700 Subject: McKellen Screenplay In his *TLS* review (May 10) of Ian McKellen's film of *Richard III,* Peter Holland refers to McKellen's and Loncraine's "published screenplay." Although the film credits list Doubleday as the publisher of this screenplay, Doubleday seems not to have heard of it. If anyone can tell me how to get a copy, I'd be most grateful. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 15:06:05 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0421 Rhetoric of the SHAKSPER List; Fahrenheit *Merchant* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0421. Thursday, 6 June 1996. (1) From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Wednesday, 5 Jun 1996 13:18:25 -0400 Subj: SHK 7.0415 The Rhetoric of the SHAKSPER List (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 05 Jun 1996 16:39:24 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0418 Re: Fahrenheit *Merchant of Venice* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Wednesday, 5 Jun 1996 13:18:25 -0400 Subject: SHK 7.0415 The Rhetoric of the SHAKSPER List Michael Best's wondrous pieties contain lessons for us all. Perhaps they could be stuffed and presented to the Folger Library? But why equate intemperance with irony? These are opposites, surely? I too will miss the astounding Florence Amit. Own up, whoever it was. T. Hawkes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 05 Jun 1996 16:39:24 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0418 Re: Fahrenheit *Merchant of Venice* Dan Lowenstein writes: >Godshalk lavishes praise on a production of "Merchant of Venice" that appears >to be a rather trite example of a contemporary director who finds Shakespeare's >play inadequate and prefers to substitute his own. The night I saw the show I sat with a noted Shakespeare scholar, two dramatists, and a dramaturg. We all enjoyed the production, and did not find it "trite." I would be happier if you called my review and my perceptions trite. The production was a well acted, imaginative recreation. Dan Lowenstein concludes: To give a single example, >Godshalk says the production "emphasizes that Shylock turns vicious only after >the elopement of Jessica." He should have said "pretends" rather than >"emphasizes." Otherwise, what is the point of the lines, "If I can catch him >once upon the hip, / I will feed fat the ancient grudge I bear him"? William Sweeney (Fahrenheit's Shylock) does speak these lines, but my impression was that this particular Shylock would not have insisted on the pound of flesh penalty IF Jessica had not eloped with a Christian AND if the Christians had made a good faith effort to apprehend the runaways. In this particular production, Shylock does not appear to be driven by revenge until after he loses his daughter. This is not to say that Sweeney's Shylock likes to be spit on and kicked, but that he's not totally unreasonable in 1.3. I think this is one way -- and only one way -- to read the script. And what if you take the pound of flesh ("taken/In what part of your body pleaseth me" {150-1]) is really an allusion to circumcision? (Thanks to James Shapiro, *Shakespeare and the Jews* -- excellent book.) What if he's really contemplating a ritual circumcision that will, in effect, turn Antonio into a Jew? Shapiro's chapter on the pound of flesh is well worth contemplating. If this cutting of the flesh is an allusion to circumcision, perhaps Shylock at this point in the play is being quite open in his desires. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 15:08:22 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0422 Call for Papers: ACMRS Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0422. Thursday, 6 June 1996. From: T. Scott Clapp Date: Wednesday, 05 Jun 1996 11:40:58 -0700 (MST) Subject: Call for Papers: ACMRS Call For Papers November 1, 1996 ACMRS (the Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies) at Arizona State University invites papers for its third annual interdisciplinary conference on February 13-15, 1997. Papers on any topic in Medieval or Early Modern studies are acceptable. Selected papers related to the conference theme, Crossing Boundaries: Issues of Cultural and Individual Identity in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, are automatically considered for publication in the third volume of the new "Arizona Studies in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance" series, published by Brepols Publishers of Belgium. Papers dealing with any facet of the Mediterranean region will be automatically considered for publication in the journal Mediterranean Studies, sponsored by the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, the Medieval and Renaissance Colloquium (MARC) at the University of Michigan, and ACMRS at Arizona State University. The setting of the conference is the Tempe Mission Palms Hotel, a five-star luxury resort featuring swimming pool, sauna, and proximity to numerous attractions in the Phoenix-Scottsdale-Tempe area. The hotel is just two blocks from the ASU campus and 15 minutes from the Phoenix airport. The high temperature in the "Valley of the Sun" during February averages 70 degrees. The conference registration fee is just $45 and includes welcoming reception, two days of concurrent sessions, concert, complimentary refreshments between sessions, and keynote address. The conference keynote speaker will be Annabel Patterson, Karl Young Professor of English, Yale University. The conference will also host The Medieval Book: A Workshop in Codicological Practice. This pre-conference half-day workshop led by Richard Clement, University of Kansas, will focus on the making of the medieval codex. Participants will discuss the preparation of parchment and paper, the making of pens and ink, and then will make and prepare several quires in preparation for writing. NOTE: This workshop does not cover scripts and is not calligraphic. A limited number of travel awards and stipends, based on demonstrated need, are available for scholars from abroad. Contact ACMRS for more information. By November 1, send two copies of session proposals, one-page abstracts, or complete papers, along with two copies of your current c.v., to the program committee chair: Robert E. Bjork, Director, ACMRS, Arizona State University, PO Box 872301, Tempe, AZ 85287-2301. Email: robert.bjork@asu.edu. Phone: (602) 965-5900. Fax: (602) 965-1681. T. Scott Clapp, Program Coordinator ACMRS (AZ Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies) Arizona State University PO Box 872301 Tempe, AZ 85287-2301 Phone: (602) 965-5900; FAX: (602) 965-1681 Internet: Scott.Clapp@asu.edu========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:42:08 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0423 Various Re: *Merchant of Venice* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0423. Friday, 7 June 1996. (1) From: Stephen Orgel Date: Thursday, 6 Jun 1996 16:44:57 -0400 Subj: Merchant of Venice (3) From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Thursday, 6 Jun 1996 16:44:40 PST Subj: Re: Fahrenheit's *Merchant of Venice* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Orgel Date: Thursday, 6 Jun 1996 13:39:57 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0421 Fahrenheit *Merchant* Re: Bill Gottschalk/Jim Shapiro Dear Bill (dear Jim): A POUND? Wow! Cheers, Stephen Orgel (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacob Goldberg Date: Thursday, 6 Jun 1996 16:44:57 -0400 Subject: Merchant of Venice June 6, 1996 In his book, Shylock, sub-titled The History of a Character, Herman Sinsheimer, a German Jew, traces the history of the pound of flesh fable, one of the two fables upon which Merchant of Venice rests. One of the earliest origins, says Sinsheimer, is a story in the Talmud. Let me quote from his book: "In the Talmud, there is a legend about Moses coming down from Sinai and seeing an eagle carrying a lamb in its beak. In a rage, Moses upbraids the eagle for being about to kill a fellow animal, just when he, Moses, had received the commandment of God: Thou shalt not kill! The eagle drops its prey, but comes down to Moses, asking him to feed its young himself. At this, the holy man bares his breast and offers his own flesh to the bird of prey." Sinsheimer does not specify the Talmudic source of this legend. Does anyone know of this story and where in the Talmud it is to be found? The book, Shylock, was written in Germany and passed the Nazi censor in 1937, but by 1938, all opportunity to publish it in Germany had disappeared. It was eventually published in London, I think, about 1947. Sinsheimer tells, also, of a morality play, The Three Ladies of London, first performed in London in 1584, in which the debtor-creditor relationship is acted out. In this play, the Jew, Gerontus, is the creditor, and the Christian, Mercadore, a London merchant (from Venice), is the debtor (Shylock and Antonio). But here, there is no pound of flesh but Mercadore refuses to pay and threatens to convert to Islam (the scene is in Turkey), which act would release him from his obligations. Gerontus pleads with him not to renounce his faith, and finally remits the whole debt lest he might be held guilty of Mercadore's perjury. When Mercadore tells the Judge ...not for all da good in da world me forsake a may Christ. the Judge replies One may judge and speak truth, as appears by this: Jews seek to excell in Christianity and Christians in Jewishness. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Thursday, 6 Jun 1996 16:44:40 PST Subject: Re: Fahrenheit's *Merchant of Venice* I should not have been so dismissive of the "Merchant" production, described by Godshalk, which I have not even seen. Especially in light of the appropriate concern recently expressed for civility in this list, I apologize for a message that was too nasty in its tone. I have no reason to question Godshalk and his companions' praise of the production from their standpoint as members of the audience. The point I wanted to make is that Godshalk's description makes it clear that in many respects the production departs from any plausible interpretation of the script. In his response, Godshalk says that although the production's Shylock does speak the "feed fat the ancient grudge" lines, still, Godshalk's impression was that THIS Shylock did not intend to enforce the bond until Jessica eloped, etc. That is exactly my point. This Shylock did not intend to enforce the bond, but Shakespeare's did. What other purpose can there be for the "feed fat the ancient grudge" lines? Certainly, the script leaves open many options for the director. For example, Godshalk indicated that in the Cincinnati production, there was no "cheating" to assist Bassanio in selecting the correct casket. I strongly agree with the director's choice on that point. Still, many directors make the opposite choice, and nothing in the text unequivocally prevents it. But the fact that many choices are available does not mean that all choices are available. Of course, there is nothing unusual nowadays about directors deciding that Shakespeare's plays are inadequate, and substituting their own. (Or critics--witness the ludicrous suggestion of Shapiro, reported by Godshalk, that the pound of flesh refers to a circumcision.) This is what I was getting at when I referred to a production of this sort as "trite." So, I stand my ground, but I regret using negative language that was glib and overbroad. Best, Dan Lowenstein UCLA Law School ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:47:40 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0424 Re: McKellen Screenplay Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0424. Friday, 7 June 1996. (1) From: Michael LoMonico Date: Thursday, 6 Jun 1996 19:40:34, -0500 Subj: SHK 7.0420 Renaissance Drama Video (2) From: David Jackson Date: Thursday, 6 Jun 1996 22:51:28 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0420 McKellen Screenplay (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael LoMonico Date: Thursday, 6 Jun 1996 19:40:34, -0500 Subject: SHK 7.0420 Renaissance Drama Video Ian Mc Kellan's screenplay is available from Overlook Press ISBN# 0- 87951-685-2. It contains a good intro and annotation about the production by McKellan as well as lots of photos. Mike LoMonico (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Thursday, 6 Jun 1996 22:51:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0420 McKellen Screenplay The McKellen/Loncraine screenplay is available in paperback in the UK; I don't know who publishes it, but I saw it in bookshops over there last month. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:50:44 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0425 Re: Shakespeare Parodies Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0425. Friday, 7 June 1996. From: Kalev Pehme Date: Friday, 7 Jun 1996 00:29:24 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0412 Re: Shakespeare Parodies My favorite of all Shakespeare parodies is Barbara Garson's _MacBird_, which also had a notable run during the 1960s in New York's Greenwich Village. Who could forget such memorable lines as MacBird's to the three witches--an old leftist, a black attired as a Muhammed Speaks salesman, and a student demonstrator: "So foul, unfair a day I've never seen. Some delegates, I guess, or shy supporters. Why howdy there! Let's give them folks a thrill. The name's MacBird! I'm might proud to meet ya! Why it's a nigra and a filthy beatnik." Oh well, all hail! Kalev Pehme ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:52:34 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0426 New Mr. William Shakespeare & The Internet Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0426. Friday, 7 June 1996. From: Terry Gray Date: Thursday, 06 Jun 1996 06:39:18 -0700 Subject: New Mr. William Shakespeare & The Internet Dear SHAKSPEReans, I would like to announce a new edition of my web index and resource pages "Mr. William Shakespeare and the Internet" at: http://www.palomar.edu/Library/SHAKE.HTM In addition to categorizing all the best links I could find (categories are Works, Biographical, Criticism, Education, Sources, Renaissance, Performance), I have also mounted some primary source documents which some may find useful, including an html rendering of Rowe's 1709 _Some Account of the Life &c. of Mr. William Shakespear_. It is rather rare to find a reliable copy of this important document, so I hope this meets a need. Further, I have included a link to all the best search engines and an explanatory guide with a "hot" access table called "How to Search the Web: A Guide To Search Tools." I hope some of you will also find this useful. If you have comments or suggestions, write me directly at: tgray@palomar.edu Thank you. --Terry Gray Palomar College ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:54:06 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0427 Q: Fluellen Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0427. Friday, 7 June 1996. From: Robert Lloyd Neblett Date: Thursday, 6 Jun 1996 22:14:36 -0600 (GMT-0600) Subject: Fluellen I have recently been cast as Fluellen in HENRY V and would like some good starting points for research on the character and the role of Welsh nationalism in the play, especially concerning the leek scenes. Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Robert L. Neblett rlneblet@artsci.wustl.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 08:27:10 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0428 Re: Various Merchant of Venice Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0428. Saturday, 8 June 1996. (1) From: Jasson Minadakis Date: Friday, 7 Jun 1996 17:49:47 -0400 Subj: FAHRENHEIT's The Merchant of Venice (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 07 Jun 1996 12:02:50 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0423 Various Re: *Merchant of Venice* (3) From: Jacob Goldberg Date: Friday, 7 Jun 1996 23:11:55 -0400 Subj: Merchant of Venice (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jasson Minadakis Date: Friday, 7 Jun 1996 17:49:47 -0400 Subject: FAHRENHEIT's The Merchant of Venice Greetings from Cincinnati, I'm thrilled by the response that Bill Godshalk's review has generated (at least from Dan Lowenstein). I'm curious to hear what others may have to say about our decision to have Shylock turn truely malicious after Jessica's flight with Lorenzo. You are welcome to respond to me directly at either the FAHRENHEIT web site or through my direct line Marni3532@aol.com, or through SHAKSPER. As for Dan's rather heated response I agree that if the line read "I will feed fat...", then Shylock would seem to have nothing else on his mind other than taking Antonio's life. However, Shylock does preceede this phrase with "If I can catch him...". Shylock recognizes the need to have an appropriate reason to seek Antonio's life. In our production we have tried to view the Shylock/Antonio relationship as much in a business and legal sense as in a religious one (Antonio's "I have oft delivered from his forfeitures..." giving ample business reason for Shylock's inital impulses, "ancient grudge" lending to the religious argument, the bond lending to the legal). As for the delay in Shylock's definite decision to kill, I'll argue that it's good business sense for Shylock to have Antonio his friend, or at least in his debt, might keep Antonio's hand at bay on the next forfeiture. Blatantly killing a Christian in the Venice of the play would hardly be a way for a Jew to stay healthy, we see how Portia and the Venetians can turn the law to their favor at almost any time. Additionally, if Shylock has already decided to take Antonio's life, where do you go with "let him look to his bond" (3 times) and "I will have the heart of him if he forfeit". That's a really big "if", not to mention the line is to Tubal, with whom I would think Shylock could be openly honest. Both of these come AFTER Jessica's flight. So to say that Shylock is actually after Antonio from I.3, the premeditated murder idea, Shylock would need to be a fool on a lot of levels. Even after Jessica's flight Shylock is only going to go through with the exaction IF Antonio does not repay the loan. Shylock knows the law, he not only needs it on his side, but as an alien in Venice, he needs it to be air tight. Portia later shows us the pretty traps that the Venetians have for aliens who seek the lives of citizens. The assumption that "Shakespeare's Shylock" wanted the pound of flesh from the beginning is one interpretation of what Shakespeare wanted. My opinion differs slightly. We did not in any way play down the idea that Shylock would like nothing better in the beginning than to have Antonio's head on a platter. But we also did not give Shylock so shallow a mind that he cannot see the benefit of having Antonio "bound to him" as opposed to "dead at my[his] foot". As for variation, we also play Portia, Nerissa, and Shylock's lines about the Christian husbands straight to the Christian husbands (we edit from Folio and leave stage directions up to each director, I'm sure I'll hear about that, too, at least I certainly hope so). Our Shylock moves for literal revenge in blood only when the laws of Venice offer no recourse or assistance (Shylock's request for the Duke to check Bassanio's ship is turned down when "Antonio certified the Duke" Lorenzo & Jessica were not aboard, even more reason for him to lock down on Antonio). I regret anything that may sound rude in this post. However, I always find myself amazed at what people assume Shakespeare meant. The beauty of the man's work is that it has been reinterpreted over and over again for 400 years. I think it's arrogant to assume that any one interpretation is right, or adversely,"trite". If you don't agree with me, good, makes for better discussion. Jasson Minadakis Executive Director FAHRENHEIT Theatre Company (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 07 Jun 1996 12:02:50 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0423 Various Re: *Merchant of Venice* I won't touch Stephen Orgel's reference to size. Let us assume that the cutting of the pound of flesh is an allusion to circumcision, not a reference to the weight of the prepuce. Dan Lowenstein responds: > Godshalk says that although the production's Shylock does speak the >"feed fat the ancient grudge" lines, still, Godshalk's impression was that THIS >Shylock did not intend to enforce the bond until Jessica eloped, etc. That is >exactly my point. This Shylock did not intend to enforce the bond, but >Shakespeare's did. What other purpose can there be for the "feed fat the >ancient grudge" lines? My question is: how can we be sure what "Shakespeare's" Shylock intended? How can we be sure what a dramatic figure intends to do? If it is quite clear what dramatic figures intend, why do Shakespeare's auditors and spectators argue about intention? My questions are meant to be rhetorical. We obviously do not know precisely what dramatic figures intend. Take Hamlet as an example. Purpose is never "perfectly clear." Take Richard Nixon as an example! >(Or critics--witness the ludicrous suggestion of Shapiro, reported by Godshalk, >that the pound of flesh refers to a circumcision.) This is what I was getting >at when I referred to a production of this sort as "trite." Shapiro's chapter IV, "The Pound of Flesh," in *Shakespeare and the Jews*, is not trite in any way--I think. Let me assure you that I have only touched on the topic of the chapter, not given an adequate summary. If you read the chapter and find it trite, fine. But let's read before we judge. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacob Goldberg Date: Friday, 7 Jun 1996 23:11:55 -0400 Subject: Merchant of Venice Shylock's lines"feed fat the ancient grudge ...." should not be construed as being related to his later attempt to kill Antonio. Shylock had not read the third act of the play when he made that statement. That we who have read it have hindsight does not mean that Shylock had foresight. Look, Shylock knew quite well that Antonio was a wealthy merchant. with many ships abroad and many good connections at home. There was almost no probability, in Shylock's mind, I would venture to say, that they would all be wrecked and nothing saved. And even if they were, Shylock would have to assume, Antonio's wealthy Christian friends would step in and save Antonio from the horrible fate to which Venetian law condemned him. No, Shylock's wish to "feed fat the ancient grudge" expresses his hatred of Christians who have tormented him and his people for a thousand years and more. Shylock could not have foreseen, or expected, that this contract would enable him to realize that wish. This does leave a couple of questions unanswered, and one wonders whether Shakespeare intentionally posed them (though by implication only). When Bassanio went forth to see how good Antonio's credit was, he was unable to find any Christian merchant or friend who would loan Antonio the money he needed. Such a loan would have been interest-free, but it was not forthcoming. Why not? Shylock, who could legally charge interest, offered the loan free of such charge, perhaps to humiliate Antonio (which, to him, was apparently worth the cost). The second question, related to the first, is why did no Christian merchant come to Antonio's aid when he faced death for non-payment of a contracted debt? Shylock's hatred overflows when the ineffable Jessica robs her father, goes over to the enemy (that is, converts), and spits on her mother's memory by trading the mother's ring, which the mother had given to Shylock and which had great sentimental value to him, for nothing, for a monkey. Shylock struck back where he could - but within the law. Jacob Goldberg ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 08:36:00 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0429 Online: King Lear Facsimiles; Richard III Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0429. Saturday, 8 June 1996. (1) From: James P. Saeger Date: Friday, 7 Jun 1996 14:20:57 -0400 (EDT) Subj: King Lear Facsimiles Online (2) From: Randal Putnam Date: Friday, 07 Jun 96 22:03:34 EDT Subj: Richard III for Cyberspace (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James P. Saeger Date: Friday, 7 Jun 1996 14:20:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: King Lear Facsimiles Online SHAKSPEReans, I'm pleased to announce the availability on the WWW of two full-color facsimile texts of *King Lear*: the second quarto and the first folio editions. The facsimiles were created from copies in the University of Pennsylvania's Horace Howard Furness Memorial Library. (As many of you will know, Mr. Furness was a Philadelphia lawyer and book collector as well as one of the original editors of the Variorum Shakespeare.) The two facsimiles can be accessed through the Penn Library Center for Electronic Text & Image (CETI). The URL for the Center's homepage is http://www.library.upenn.edu/etext/ (to find the Shakespearean texts, follow the link to the "Electronic Bookshelf") I recommend interested browsers to use a computer with a fast internet connection (hardwired/ethernet) and a color monitor with a resolution of at least 1024x768 pixels. (For Windows users this means any SVGA monitor; for Mac users this mean a 17" or larger monitor). These texts are part of several pilot projects we have done at the Center to experiment with the online presentation of rare books and other library materials. We would very much like any comments and reactions to these two texts; please send them either to me (jsaeger@english.upenn.edu) or to Michael Ryan, Director of Special Collections (ryan@pobox.upenn.edu). James P. Saeger Project Coordinator, CETI (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Randal Putnam Date: Friday, 07 Jun 96 22:03:34 EDT Subject: Richard III for Cyberspace Greetings Perhaps this would be best under the "parodies" discussion, but I've just ran across a web site at www.ashakespeare.com that on June 25, 1996 is going to feature a performance of RIII. The premise is that space aliens commanded the director Phillippe Mora to do this or the earth would be destroyed. The producers are combining Hollywood film and New York stage talent. I'll leave the rest to your better judgments. The Reduced Shakespeare web site has also moved to: www.actwin.com/REDUCED Enjoy ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 08:41:59 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0430 Qs: Hesiod; Jungian Lear Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0430. Saturday, 8 June 1996. (1) From: Steve Sohmer Date: Friday, 7 Jun 1996 16:22:35 -0400 Subj: Hesiod (2) From: Susan Mather Date: Friday, 7 Jun 1996 14:35:56 -0400 (EDT) Subj: [Jungian Lear] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Friday, 7 Jun 1996 16:22:35 -0400 Subject: Hesiod Does anyone know of a paper (or expert) on Shakespeare's knowledge of Hesoid? Many thanks. Steve (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Friday, 7 Jun 1996 14:35:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Jungian Lear] I don't know if you were talking to me, T. Hawkes, but I'm the one who will miss Florence Amit. I was just about to send a "no mail" sign to Mr. Cook when I realized that this would be very stupid since I have to start reading my research on King Lear. I have a problem though because I was asked to look into the major plays of Shakespeare and I'm not sure if I know what is traditionally considered "major." I have to defend April 1997, so I have time, I think. Please do not flame me for my ignorance! Also, I was told I should look into Mirror for Magistrates, but I'm not sure what I should be looking for as far as it pertains to Lear. My proposal consists of a Jungian approach to Lear's situation with the division of his kingdom and I have dealt with the individuation process, anima & animus, etc. in a former paper. I just need to analyze it further b/c it was to be up to 30 pp. and this thesis must be 65+. So--I plan to look at Gloucester and his sons with Lear and his daughters to make my analysis fuller at this point. Let me know what plays are major & if you've heard of this project being done before, also let me know. I found out after the fact that H. R. Coursen wrote "A Jungian Approach" already, but it doesn't follow the same direction necessarily. Nevertheless, this is impo. obviously and I would appreciate any direction you all can give me-- smather@phoenix.kent.edu Susan Mather ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 08:46:46 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0431 Re: Welsh; Wilders Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0431. Saturday, 8 June 1996. (1) From: Michael Friedman Date: Friday, 07 Jun 1996 16:53:52 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0427 Q: Fluellen (2) From: Susanne Collier Date: Friday, 7 Jun 1996 10:59:52 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0419 Renaissance Promptbooks (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Friday, 07 Jun 1996 16:53:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0427 Q: Fluellen Articles related to Shakespeare and the Welsh: Powers, Alan. "Gallia and Gaul, French and Welsh": Comic Ethnic Slander in the Gallia Wars." *Acting Funny: Comic Theory and Practice in Shakespeare's Plays*. Ed. Frances Teague. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 1994. 109-22. Rees, Joan. "Shakespeare's Welshmen." *Literature and Nationalism*. Ed. Vincent Newey and Ann Thompson. Liverpool: LUP, 1991. 22-40. Adkins, Camille. "Glendower and Fluellen: Or, Where Are the Leeks of Yesterday?" *Conference of Teachers of English Studies* 48 (Sept. 1983):101-8. Michael Friedman University of Scranton (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susanne Collier Date: Friday, 7 Jun 1996 10:59:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0419 Renaissance Promptbooks John Wilders was, when I met him in 1982, a tutor or senior lecturer (I can't remember which) at Worcester College, Oxford. He was the textual advisor to the BBC Shakespeare video series. I know that he did accept short appointments at U.S. universities. If he's left Middlebury, try Oxford. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 08:48:48 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0432 London Flats Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0432. Saturday, 8 June 1996. From: Susanne Collier Date: Friday, 7 Jun 1996 11:08:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Flats in London I've just discovered a great bargain for renting flats by the week in London. If anyone is going to London and wants to stay in their own flat, not an hotel, call Britain Bound Travel 1 (800) 805-8210 and be sure to ask for David; he has dealt with a lot of academics and can get you the best deal. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 08:52:57 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0433 Re: McKellen Screenplay Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0433. Saturday, 8 June 1996. (1) From: Randal Putnam Date: Friday, 07 Jun 96 21:06:15 EDT Subj: McKellen screenplay (2) From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Friday, 07 Jun 96 17:09:00 0BS Subj: McKellen Screenplay (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Randal Putnam Date: Friday, 07 Jun 96 21:06:15 EDT Subject: McKellen screenplay It's published by Overlook Press, Lewis Hollow Road, Woodstock, NY 12498. ISBN 0-87951-685-2 in paperback $14.95 It's an annotated screenplay giving lots on inside points on how the film developed. The introduction by Ian McKellen outlines how RIII became set in the 1930's. It will tide me over until the video comes out. Enjoy (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Friday, 07 Jun 96 17:09:00 0BS Subject: McKellen Screenplay I have a copy of this; it has Doubleday on the spine, but says Transworld Publishers Ltd inside. It is readily available here - I bought it a couple of weeks ago. Lisa Hopkins ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 10:12:29 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0434 Re: Wilders Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0434. Monday, 10 June 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 08 Jun 1996 13:25:19 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0431 Re:Wilders (2) From: Mark Lawhorn Date: Sunday, 9 Jun 1996 09:42:36 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0431 Re: Wilders (3) From: Christy Anderson Date: Sunday, 9 Jun 1996 16:49:32 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0431 Re: Wilders (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 08 Jun 1996 13:25:19 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0431 Re:Wilders Thanks to all for the information about John Wilders. I've written to him (snail mail) with my question. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Lawhorn Date: Sunday, 9 Jun 1996 09:42:36 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0431 Re: Wilders John Wilders will be teaching at the Bread Loaf School of English, Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont 05753-6131 from June 25 to August 10, according to the catalogue for the summer of 1996. Mark H. Lawhorn lawhorn@hawaii.edu English Dept. UH Manoa (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christy Anderson Date: Sunday, 9 Jun 1996 16:49:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0431 Re: Wilders During the summers John Wilders in usually in Oxford. You can send him mail at Worcester College, Oxford OX1 2HB. Christy Anderson Yale University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 10:31:31 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0435 Re: Jungian; MV; Hesiod; Hebrew Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0435. Monday, 10 June 1996. (1) From: Avraham Oz Date: Saturday, 8 Jun 1996 18:30:03 +0300 (IDT) Subj: Jungian *Lear* (2) From: Stanley M. Holberg Date: Saturday, 08 Jun 1996 12:33:58 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Merchant of Venice (3) From: David Evett Date: Saturday, 8 June 1996 12:48pm ET Subj: SHK 7.0430 Q: Hesiod (4) From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Sunday, 9 Jun 1996 06:40:16 -0400 Subj: 'Florence Amit' (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Avraham Oz Date: Saturday, 8 Jun 1996 18:30:03 +0300 (IDT) Subject: Jungian *Lear* Susan Mather, Do have a look - if you haven't done so already - at Alex Aronson's *Psyche & Symbol in Shakespeare* (Indiana UP, 1972), esp. pp181-89, 224-28. Good luck, A. Oz (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stanley M. Holberg Date: Saturday, 08 Jun 1996 12:33:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Merchant of Venice Must we assumee that Shakespeare knew what Shylock's intention is when he proposes the pound of flesh agreement? Perhaps Shylock himself doesn't know. It seems to me entirely possible that he is saying to himself, "Let's float this and see where it goes. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Saturday, 8 June 1996 12:48pm ET Subject: SHK 7.0430 Q: Hesiod Steve Sohmer should look for Hesiod in the index to John Velz's bibliography of Shakespeare and the Classics, and perhaps follow that up with a note to J.V. (a subscriber to this list, I believe). I'm going to guess that it's one of those situations where direct knowledge would be hard to demonstrate, because Hesiodic ideas (e.g. the golden age) were distributed through other classical authors, through medieval and early modern writers drawing on those other classical authors, through early modern writers directly familar with Hesiod, and throughpeople Shakespeare talked to who knew one or more of these sources. Diffusely, David Evett (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Sunday, 9 Jun 1996 06:40:16 -0400 Subject: 'Florence Amit' Dear Susan Mather: I'd assumed that, like me, you were hailing the 'Florence Amit' postings as the elaborate joke they clearly were. She will certainly be much missed. Are you now hinting that it was really you all along? Love it. T. Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 10:34:54 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0436 RSA Announcement Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0436. Monday, 10 June 1996. From: William R. Bowen Date: Sunday, 9 Jun 1996 18:10:31 -0400 Subject: RSA Announcement [The following announcement was posted yesterday on FICINO. --HMC] THE PHYLLIS GOODHART GORDAN BOOK PRIZE The Renaissance Society of America has instituted an annual book prize of $1000, in memory of the late Phyllis Goodhart Gordan, a strong supporter of the RSA from its early days. The purpose of the prize is to recognize significant accomplishment in Renaissance Studies by members of the RSA and to encourage Renaissance scholarship. The first Gordan Prize will be awarded to the author of the best book in Renaissance Studies published between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1995. The winner will be announced at the annual meeting at Bloomington, Indiana, April 18-21, 1996. The prize is awarded to a book written in one of the disciplines recognized by the RSA, and published in the period between July 1 and June 30 following the annual meeting. One copy of each work, together with a brief curriculum vitae, must be received by each of the prize committee members, whose names and addresses will be provided by the RSA Office. Authors must be current members of the RSA. Each entry should be labeled "Gordan Prize Entry." Entries must be postmarked by or on July 15. Late entries will not be considered. Please see the inside cover of the biannual Directory of Members of the RSA for the list of disciplines. The prize will be awarded for a book dealing with a Renaissance topic within the chronological period, 1300-1700. The following are offered as examples of Renaissance topics: a vernacular or neo-Latin literary author, topic, or text; humanism in any of its forms; printing; a Renaissance city-state and/or its institutions; the art or an artist of the period. These topics are not meant to exclude other possibilities. Bibliographical works and scholarly aids are eligible for the Gordan prize, but editions of texts and translations will not be considered. The book must be written in English. Books will be judged on the following criteria: A. Contribution to Renaissance studies B. Originality in insight and research C. Clarity and eloquence D. Thoroughness and accuracy in documentation. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 08:39:42 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0438 Re: Shylock; Jung; Hebrew Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0438. Wednesday, 12 June 1996. (1) From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Monday, 10 Jun 1996 12:25:24 PST Subj: Shylock's purpose (2) From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 10 Jun 96 18:40:05 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0430 Q: Jungian Lear (3) From: Wes Folkerth Date: Monday, 10 Jun 1996 14:39:05 +0000 Subj: Florence Amit (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Monday, 10 Jun 1996 12:25:24 PST Subject: Shylock's purpose Minadakis makes good points, though I am not persuaded. The best published discussion of which I am aware of Shylock's purpose in lending the money is in the well-known essay on Merchant by Harold C. Goddard. It can be found in the anthology, "Shylock," edited by Harold Bloom and published in 1991. Goddard essentially agrees with Minadakis. I briefly stated some reasons for my disagreement in a long footnote in an article published in 1994. The article is in volume 15 of the Cardozo Law Review, the discussion of Merchant appears at pp. 1157-74, and the footnote is number 86. Best, Dan Lowenstein UCLA Law School (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 10 Jun 96 18:40:05 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0430 Q: Jungian Lear Susan Mather might be interested in reading Diane Dreher's "Domination and Defiance: Fathers and Daughters in Shakespeare." It attempts a Jungian approach to pretty much the whole canon and contains a fair amount on _Lear_. Hope it helps! David Skeele (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wes Folkerth Date: Monday, 10 Jun 1996 14:39:05 +0000 Subject: Florence Amit I may be getting paranoid, but I'm beginning to think Terence Hawkes is Florence Amit. Wes Folkerth ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 08:44:09 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0439 Q: Two Questions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0439. Wednesday, 12 June 1996. From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 10 Jun 1996 12:07:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Two Questions Dear Listmembers-- Two questions. 1) Does anyone know of any good studies (beyond the chapter in that book "Woman's Re-Visions of Shakespeare") of Emily Dickinson's appropriations or uses of Shakespeare (whether explicit or implicit)? She has a very weird reference to SHYLOCK in a very weird earlyish poem. But there are MANY others... 2) Where would be good places to publish REVIEWS of recent scholarly books on Shakespeare? I mean "reviews" that are allowed to be a little more intellectual than, say, the American Book Review. Probably specialist journals, etc. Any suggestions would be very appreciated. Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 08:34:08 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0437 Re: Fluellen Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0437. Wednesday, 12 June 1996. (1) From: Jasson Minadakis Date: Monday, 10 Jun 1996 10:15:25 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0427 Q: Fluellen (2) From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Monday, 10 Jun 96 17:04:00 0BS Subj: Fluellen (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jasson Minadakis Date: Monday, 10 Jun 1996 10:15:25 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0427 Q: Fluellen Hi Robert, I am currently beginning work on HENRY V for FAHRENHEIT Theatre Company in Cincinnati. I'll be directing the play in the fall. I'd be happy to keep you posted on anything I find on Fluellen and the Welsh if you'd be kind enough to do the same. There is some interesting material on Henry and his Welsh feelings, as well as his Welsh campaigns in a biography by Christopher Allmand titled, simply enough, HENRY V. Again, there are some interesting aspects of Henry's relationship with the Welsh and the campaigns in SHAKESPEARE'S ENGLISH KINGS by Peter Saccio. When are you going into rehearsal? If you'd like, I can also keep our Fluellen, Khristopher Lewin, in touch with you. He's played Gratiano, Macbeth, and Jaques for us in the past year. He always brings an interesting heartiness into all of his roles. He's currently playing the part in a pre-rehearsal staged reading. I also know that the SSE is currently running HENRY V on their national tour. Their actors seem to have unique perspectives on roles like Fluellen because of the time they spend with each part. They have been running HENRY for about five months now. I can get their e-mail for you soon. "Pest" Wishes! Jasson Minadakis Executive Director FAHRENHEIT Theatre Company (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Monday, 10 Jun 96 17:04:00 0BS Subject: Fluellen Sorry for the self-advertising but I've got an essay on Fluellen forthcoming in _Shakespeare Studies_, and I've also written a bit on the Welsh presence in Renaissance drama generally. A wildly old-fashioned but thorough account (and also one written from a Welsh perspective) is Arthur E. Hughes, 'Shakespeare and his Welsh Characters', _Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion_, 1917-18, pp.159-189. For a very different approach, but one which does give you a good sense of the prominence of the Elizabethan 'London Welsh', see Gwyn A,. Williams, _Madoc: The Legend of the Welsh Discovery of America_ (Oxford, 1987) (yes, folks, we got there first...). Then, as now, the Welsh were prominent in London: Philip II referred to Elizabeth I as 'that Welsh harridan', William Cecil's name was originally Sisyllt. In _1 Henry IV_, at least, Shakespeare clearly had an actor who spoke Welsh. Features of Fluellen's characterisation, like the Alexander bit, may perhaps reflect the prominent numbers of London Welsh antiquaries with their mania for all things classical. You could also have a look at John Ford and Thomas Dekker's _The Welsh Embassador_ for some Welsh jokes, like alleged inability to pronounce 'th' and proliferation of patronymics. Leeks, however, are unusual; it's generally toasted cheese that Welshmen eat. Arguably, you might see leeks as more 'authentic'. One thing I think is clear: you might poke gentle fun at the Welsh, but then - as now! - you couldn't afford (and probably wouldn't want) to offend us. Pob hwyl, Lisa Hopkins Sheffield Hallam University LMHopkins@shu.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 08:03:08 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0440 Re: Jung; Flats; Shylock; What joke was that? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0440. Thursday, 13 June 1996. (1) From: Rebecca C Totaro Date: Tuesday, 11 Jun 1996 07:55:38 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Jungian *Lear* (2) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Tuesday, 11 Jun 1996 11:47:06 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0432 London Flats (3) From: Rick Jones Date: Wednesday, 12 Jun 1996 09:52:58 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Once more on Shylock (4) From: Jane A Thompson Date: Tuesday, 11 Jun 1996 11:16:26 -0500 (CDT) Subj: What joke was that? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rebecca C Totaro Date: Tuesday, 11 Jun 1996 07:55:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Jungian *Lear* Dear Ms. Mather-- You would do well to consider utilizing the knowledge of Charlotte Spivack, Professor of English at U.Mass, Amherst. Her specialty is Shakespeare and Jung with a twist of sci-fi. She knows her Shakespeare backwards and forwards and often travels to Boston's Jung Center (or some such name), so she's mastered both fields. She taught "Shakespeare and Jung" a a graduate class with large enrollment and is simply a delight to work with. I am certain she'd respond with good suggestions to any letter about Shakespeare/Jung sources. You can reach her through U.Mass, Amherst MA 01003 All the Best, Rebecca Totaro (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Tuesday, 11 Jun 1996 11:47:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0432 London Flats Susanne, Will you clarify for Canadians, for whom 1-800 numbers do not always work? Where is Britain Bound Travel located exactly? And what prices have you heard for a central London or North London flat? Ads in Toronto say flats start at $725 weekly, which I call pretty pricey! [That's $532 US.] Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ McMaster University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Wednesday, 12 Jun 1996 09:52:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Once more on Shylock What I find curious in the debate about Shylock's "motives" is the need to find some positivist certainty. I claim no special perspicacity, but perhaps a different perspective, as one has has actually spoken the "feed fat the ancient grudge" line on a stage. At that moment, in *my* mind, Shylock has no intention of doing Antonio bodily harm. First, as others have pointed out, he has no reason to believe Antonio will forfeit: he is, in effect, buying a lottery ticket--great fun if he wins, but what, really, are the chances of that? Second, he suggests this bond instead of interest, which *I* took simply as a means of confounding the Christians: nothing is more frightening than someone who doesn't fulfill our preconceptions. Third, Shylock operates in an eye-for-an-eye world. Antonio has humiliated Shylock, who seeks an opportunity for revenge *in kind*. A legal sanction to (emotionally) abuse Antonio in public seems very appealing indeed. The thought of literally making good on the "pound of flesh" needn't enter his head here... indeed, I played the proposal of the bond as something that just popped into my head at the spur of the moment, a throwaway. Shylock, to my mind, is just plain *smarter* than either A or B, and takes a certain pleasure in proving it. (Of course, later in the play, he begins to be ruled by emotions rather than intellect, and THAT is a major problem.) *Can* Shylock mean sanctioned murder when he speaks of feeding fat the ancient grudge? Sure. *Must* he? I think not. And that is precisely why the play is still performed... isn't it? Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jane A Thompson Date: Tuesday, 11 Jun 1996 11:16:26 -0500 (CDT) Subject: What joke was that? I must admit, I am not as a rule very good either at spotting practical jokes or at laughing at them, so I will not venture to comment on whether Florence Amit was in fact joking or not. What I find a more interesting question anyway is this: By what means did readers decide to receive the postings as spoofs or as arguments? Please don't answer, "Common sense." I think our postings here have demonstrated that there is no sense that common. If scholarship can be parodied, it must have not only surface conventions to tie the parody to the parent genre, but other contentual conventions which the parody importantly violates--or isn't that so? What are these conventions in Shakespeare scholarship? (Or is it not worthwhile to speak as if Shakespeare scholarship were a single genre?) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 08:06:14 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0441 Re: Two Questions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0441. Thursday, 13 June 1996. From: Bruce Sajdak Date: Wednesday, 12 Jun 1996 13:46:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0439 Q: Two Questions Robert F. Fleissner dealt with Dickinson's debt to Shakespeare in "Dickinson's 'Moor'" _Dickinson Studies_ 34 (1978) 7-12. Perhaps _Shakespeare Newsletter_ would be interested in scholarly book reviews. Many other journals also review this type of book - _Modern Language Review_, _Hamlet Studies_, - of course _Shakespeare Quarterly_, and others. Bruce Sajdak Smith College Northampton, MA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 08:09:17 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0442 Qs: Shakespearean Comedy; Milton Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0442. Thursday, 13 June 1996. (1) From: Mario Ghezzi Date: Wednesday, 12 Jun 1996 23:12:07 +1000 Subj: Shakespearean Comedy (2) From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Wednesday, 12 Jun 96 23:56:45 UT Subj: Two Milton Questions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mario Ghezzi Date: Wednesday, 12 Jun 1996 23:12:07 +1000 Subject: Shakespearean Comedy Dear SHAKSPER, I am currently teaching TWELFTH NIGHT and THE TEMPEST under the heading "Shakespearean Comedy". Could anybody point me in the right direction re. a good definition/ discussion/ article? Is there an equivalent to Bradley's work on Shakesperean Tragedy in the area of Shakespearean Comedy? Regards, Mario Ghezzi (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Wednesday, 12 Jun 96 23:56:45 UT Subject: Two Milton Questions Sorry to intrude a Milton matter here but would appreciate any leads anybody can give. First... Does anyone know of, and if yes know the address of, a Milton E-Mail conference? Second: I am seeking post-17th century adaptations and treatments of Paradise Lost. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 08:14:01 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0443 Henry V in the Park Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0443. Thursday, 13 June 1996. From: Edna Boris Date: Wednesday, 12 Jun 96 20:02:15 EDT Subject: Henry V The current New Yorker (June 17th) with the controversial "Don't Ask" cover contains an interesting article by Lawrence Weschler called "Take No Prisoners" describing the approach in rehersals for the Shakespeare in the Park production with Andre Braugher as Henry, Douglas Hughes as director, and Professor Theodor Meron, a scholar of international humanitarian law as consultant. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 08:17:00 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0444 ACTER Fall Tour Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0444. Thursday, 13 June 1996. From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Thursday, 13 Jun 1996 06:38:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: ACTER Fall Tour The ACTER Fall 1996 Tour of *Much Ado About Nothing* will visit the following campuses: Sept. 10-15 UNC-Chapel Hill(one performance Sept. 13th); Sept. 16-22, The University of Memphis, Memphis TN;Sept. 23-29, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN;Sept. 30-Oct. 6, Hendrix College, Conway AR; Oct. 7-13, Stephen F. Austin University, Nacogdoches,TX;Oct. 14-20 UT-San Antonio, San Antonio, TX; Oct. 21-27 The University of Richmond, Richmond, VA; Oct. 28-Nov. 3, UNC-Chapel Hill; Nov. 4-10 De Pauw University, Greencastle, IN;; Nov. 11-17, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA; and Nov. 18-22, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH. If you would like more information on ACTER, visit our Web site at: http://www.unc.edu/depts/acter/ or contact Cynthia Dessen, General Manager at csdessen@email.unc.edu or 919-967-4265. The Spring 1997 production will be *Romeo and Juliet*; there is one opening Feb. 17-23. Bookings now for Fall 1997(*Measure for Measure*) and Spring 1998 (*Romeo and Juliet*). We also have a free video which we would be glad to send you. Thank you!========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 14:57:46 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0445 Re: Shakespearean Comedy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0445. Saturday, 15 June 1996. (1) From: Framji Minwalla Date: Thursday, 13 Jun 1996 10:01:08 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0442 Q: Shakespearean Comedy (2) From: Russ McDonald Date: Thursday, 13 Jun 1996 10:22:32 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0442 Q: Shakespearean Comedy (3) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 13 Jun 1996 12:59:54 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shakespeare Comedy (4) From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Friday, 14 Jun 1996 02:27:52 -0400 Subj: SHK 7.0442 Qs: Shakespearean Comedy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Framji Minwalla Date: Thursday, 13 Jun 1996 10:01:08 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0442 Q: Shakespearean Comedy To Mario Ghezzi: A good place to start would be Barber's SHAKESPEARE'S FESTIVE COMEDY. Framji Minwalla (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russ McDonald Date: Thursday, 13 Jun 1996 10:22:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0442 Q: Shakespearean Comedy In response to Mario Ghezzi's inquiry about help with teaching Shakespearean comedy: Northrop Frye, "The Argument of Comedy," rpt. in Leonard F. Dean, SHAKESPEARE: MODERN ESSAYS IN CRITICISM (NY: Oxford, 1957). Barber, C.L. SHAKESPEARE'S FESTIVE COMEDY (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1959). Elam, Keir. SHAKESPEARE'S UNIVERSE OF DISCOURSE: LANGUAGE GAMES IN THE COMEDIES (London: Methuen, 1984). Bradbrook, Muriel. THE GROWTH AND STRUCTURE OF ELIZABETHAN COMEDY (London: Chatto and Windus, 1955). This is more than you need. For practical help with particular plays, a good basic resource is Bertrand Evans, SHAKESPEARE'S COMEDIES (Oxford: OUP, 1960). (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 13 Jun 1996 12:59:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare Comedy Well, I just past my Ph.D. exams with a huge 75 book reading list on primarily Shakespearean comedy criticism... So, though there were books by H.B. Charlton in 1938 and John Palmer that began explorations in comedy, the standard rap seems to be that NORTHROP FRYE AND C.L BARBER'S books from the 1950's were really the first biggies that made the study of comedy as "respectible" as tragedy. It's been a slow development though--and especially Barber seems to speak too much from a kind of 1950's conservative piety and his "influence" on recent criticism is largely as a foil. Actually, much of the best discussion of particular comedies may be by critics who write on BOTH comedy and tragedy (Say, Muriel Bradbrook's 1951 book--S and Eliz. Poetry). Betrand Evans' book is interesting (1960), if dated. Sigurd Burckhardt uses 12th Night to make a point of Shakes' as "poet" (1968) in his chapter on "method" More recently, ALEXANDER LEGGATT's book from the early 70s is often appealed to. RUTH NEVO--Shakespearean Transformations. Ralph Berry and Richard Levin (1986) have "darker" readings of the comedies. Interesting psychoanalytic/gender studies work being done--much of it not in booklength studies yet, but collections:Shakespeare's ROUGH MAGIC for instance; the WOMAN'S PART. There's the Greenblatt (New Historicist) 12th Night piece in his SHAKESPEAREAN NEGOTIATIONS) and Geoffrey Hartman's "deconstructive" reading in S AND THE QUESTION OF THEORY. Renee Girard's recent theatre of envy has chapters on both the plays you're dealing with. This should be at least the broad outlines of a kind of "map" to start you. There's NO singular definitive authorative book---which is part of what makes the whole S industry, for me, so interesting. Of course, you might want to ask WHY do you consider THE TEMPEST a comedy? If you're only teaching it and 12 NIGHT it could really inform (distort?) your students' sense of what comedy is. But whether even the more famous critics want to admit it, all of our senses of Shakespeare are distorted anyway. Hope this sort of helps. chris (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Friday, 14 Jun 1996 02:27:52 -0400 Subject: SHK 7.0442 Qs: Shakespearean Comedy Mario Ghezzi asks 'Is there an equivalent to Bradley's work on Shakesperean Tragedy in the area of Shakespearean Comedy?' No: so far, so good. But keep your voice down. T. Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:02:22 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0446 Re: Henry V in the Park Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0446. Saturday, 15 June 1996. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 13 Jun 1996 12:32:55 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0443 Henry V in the Park (2) From: Bruce Fenton Date: Friday, 14 Jun 1996 09:13:41 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0443 Henry V in the Park (3) From: John W. Mahon Date: Thursday, 13 Jun 96 17:31:39 EDT Subj: SHK 7.0443 Henry V in the Park (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 13 Jun 1996 12:32:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0443 Henry V in the Park Dear Edna Boris--- Do you know the schedule for HENRY V in the park yet? When does it start? I hear they're also doing TIMON! P.S. To listmembers--I should be on the list for another two weeks, but I will then be moving to NYC and probably in the bustle etc. will be off for awhile. If anyone would like to keep in touch with me, I'll backchannel you my home address there..... the stimulation of this list has been very positive for me, especially working in a "vacuum" here in albany.... Chris Stroffolino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Fenton Date: Friday, 14 Jun 1996 09:13:41 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0443 Henry V in the Park Does anyone know the date times and cost for Henry V in the park? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John W. Mahon Date: Thursday, 13 Jun 96 17:31:39 EDT Subject: SHK 7.0443 Henry V in the Park Thursday, 13 June 1996 With regard to Edna Boris's note that the current NEW YORKER (June 17) publishes an article by Lawrence Weschler on HENRY V-- Weschler points out that both films of the play delete the brutal passage in 4.6 where Henry, in flagrant violation of chivalric codes of war, orders that "every soldier kill his prisoners" (4.6.37 in the Arden 2 edition). He focuses on the decision of Douglas Hughes, director of the play in Central Park this summer, to include this passage and, indeed, to highlight it, in order to emphasize the complex personality of Henry V. Some years before he made his own film of the play, Kenneth Branagh performed the title role in a production staged by the Royal Shakespeare Company. My wife Ellen and I saw the production in the spring of 1984, and we were impressed both by its grim realism and by the promise of its young star. What I cannot recall is whether or not the passage cited above was included in the production. Can any SHAKSPEReans help? Does anyone recall how the 1984 RSC production handled these words? John W. Mahon THE SHAKESPEARE NEWSLETTER Iona College ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:02:56 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0447 Re: Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0447. Saturday, 15 June 1996. From: Sydney Kasten Date: Friday, 14 Jun 1996 00:58:01 +0200 (IST) Subject: Re: Shylock, Moses and the eagle, original versions On June 6 Jacob Goldberg asked where in the Talmud one could find the following story quoted by H. Sinsheimer in his book on Shylock. "In the Talmud, there is a legend about Moses coming down from Sinai and seeing an eagle carrying a lamb in its beak. In a rage, Moses upbraids the eagle for being about to kill a fellow animal, just when he, Moses, had received the commandment of God: Thou shalt not kill! The eagle drops its prey, but comes down to Moses, asking him to feed its young himself. At this, the holy man bares his breast and offers his own flesh to the bird of prey." "Sefer HaAgadah" by Bialik and Ravnitzky, (Dvir (Hebrew), Tel Aviv, 3d edition 1948) is an indexed compendium of Talmudic tales metaphors and aphorisms, which I have no reason to believe is not exhaustive. I looked up all the references where "eagle" and "Moses" appeard on the same page and came up with nothing. The tale is probably spurious, especially since a good deal the Law given to the Moses deals with the regulation of animal sacrifice. The commandment should read in English "Thou shalt not commit murder", rather than "Thou shalt not kill". It seems that the translators of the King James Bible seem to have taken great pains to maintain the number of words as close to the Hebrew original as possible and even their order, presumably out of respect for its sanctity. In the Hebrew the commandment is stated in a mere two words. (Such restraints on the translation would justify using the best English wordsmiths around - lending weight to the proposition that Shakespeare was on the team.) The Book of Exodus gives the account of Moses' descent from Sinai. Moses was enraged when he saw that the Children of Israel had contravened the injunction against graven images, and a great deal of killing went on. When G-d thought about destroying the stiff-necked nation Moses offered himself in their place: "Erase me from your Book". Quoting sources is a solid Rabbinic tradition going back 2000 years, as is adherence to rules of derivation. Therefore I would suggest that Sinsheimer's failure to supply tractate and page imply that there is none. On the other hand, maybe it wasn't an eagle but some other bird. No one I have asked has heard of the story but I will keep looking. Incidentally, the reference to the Ten Commandments has relevance to the recent discussion on Original Versions. Some of the members of the list may not be aware that the Commandments appear twice in the Five Books: once in Exodus and again in Deuteronomy. Now the very name of the fifth book gives witness to the fact that it is a recapitulation for the Children of Israel before they enter the Land of Canaan of their history and their wanderings in the wilderness. It would therefore seem clear that the version of the Commandments in Exodus is "original" and the that in Deuteronomy is the 40 year old memory of the 120 year old Moses, right? Wrong! The Rabbinic tradition is quite firm about both versions having been uttered in the same breath at Sinai, and have equal and congruent weight and significance. To come down from the Heavenly Sublime to the earthly sublime, The early version of Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy had, for me, a compelling beauty of its own. Unfortunately, my archiving system has is such that I wasn't able to find it among my Shaksper folders. Can someone remind what date it was posted? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:03:57 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0448 Re: Two Questions; Milton Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0448. Saturday, 15 June 1996. (1) From: John W. Mahon Date: Thursday, 13 Jun 96 17:53:29 EDT Subj: SHK 7.0439 Q: Two Questions (2) From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Friday, 14 Jun 96 15:50:00 0BS Subj: Milton (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John W. Mahon Date: Thursday, 13 Jun 96 17:53:29 EDT Subject: SHK 7.0439 Q: Two Questions Thursday, 13 June 1996 Chris Stroffolino asks for advice on journals that publish scholarly reviews of books on Shakespeare. THE SHAKESPEARE NEWSLETTER welcomes such reviews and invites submissions and inquiries. Write to us at the Department of English, Iona College, 715 North Avenue, New Rochelle, NY 10801. E-mail address is shnl@iona.bitnet, and our fax number is (914) 637-2722. John W. Mahon THE SHAKESPEARE NEWSLETTER Iona College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Friday, 14 Jun 96 15:50:00 0BS Subject: Milton Would C.S. Lewis's _Perelandra_ (later reprinted as _Voyage to Venus_) count as a loose adaptation of _Paradise Lost_? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:04:57 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0449 Productions: AYLI and *King Lear* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0449. Saturday, 15 June 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 13 Jun 1996 21:43:51 -0400 Subj: Review of the Pennsylvania Shakespeare Festival's As You Like It (2) From: Chae Lian Diong Date: Friday, 14 Jun 1996 13:04:11 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Pittsburgh: KING LEAR (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 13 Jun 1996 21:43:51 -0400 Subject: Review of the Pennsylvania Shakespeare Festival's As You Like It On June 11, I attended a preview of the Pennsylvania Shakespeare Festival's *As You Like It* at Allentown College in (or near) Spring Valley, Pennsylvania. Dennis Razze is the director, and the production is set in the eighteenth century -- in a France reminiscent of Watteau's *Fete in a Park.* The scenery is in white silhouette, with three tiers of trees -- the front tier being mobile and used for comic effect. Different gates and doors are lowered to indicate changes in locale, and during one of Ganymede's meetings with Orlando, a swing is lowered for Ganymede to sport upon. The costumes are, of course, eighteenth century -- tricorns and breeches. Although there is an "upper stage," it is not extensively used in this production. The action begins with Oliver (Jonathan Robinson) and Dennis (Kevin O'Donnell) fencing. Yes, it's not in the script, but it gives Orlando (Ian Merrill Peakes) an excuse to complain to old Adam (William Preston) of his poor breeding. Rosalind (Callan White) is obviously older than Orlando in this production -- a fact that perhaps emphasizes her maturity of vision. This older woman has something to teach the younger Orlando. Nevertheless, Rosalind and Celia (Elizabeth MacLellan) giggle a little too readily for my taste. Not every line demands an onstage laugh. Mark LaMura plays both Duke Frederick and Duke Senior -- Duke Frederick in your long, gray wig . He does an excellent job of presenting (and distinguishing between) the two older men. (In last year's Pennsylvania Festival he played Benedick.) Touchstone (Terry Burgler) is a man of many different hats, and his stage business mirrors his parodic function in the production. Alan Coates plays an aristocratic, well-dressed Jaques (pronounced "Jakes" here). Marc and Suzanne O'Donnell present a comic Silvius and Phebe. The music is excellent. Brian Anthony Wilson (Amiens) has an operatic voice, and the two young pages, Andrew Marsh and Nathaniel Myers, are perfect. Marsh also plays a stately Hymen. The script is judiciously cut. For example, Ganymede's puzzling lines to Phebe, "If you will know my house,/'Tis at the tuft of olives here hard by" (3.5.74-75), are gone. Some of the scenes have been rearranged. Act 2, scene 4, is divided into two parts at line 14 -- and the second part placed later in the action. Act 3, scene 1, is interpolated into Act 2, scene 7. I suppose the director was after a kind of montage effect. Also, the outlaws remain on stage while Orlando and Adam pass over (2.6). (As I recall, Alan Dessen has suggested this particular staging of 2.6.) The production runs until June 29. I recommend it-- as well as dinner at the close-by Spring Valley Inn. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chae Lian Diong Date: Friday, 14 Jun 1996 13:04:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Pittsburgh: KING LEAR The Unseam'd Shakespeare Company, in association with the University of Pittsburgh's Theatre Department, presents their production of KING LEAR, directed by David Pellegrini and starring Bill Caisley in the title role, and Chae Lian as Cordelia. Venue: Stephen Foster Memorial Theatre, Oakland Dates: Previews June 26, 27 and runs June 28-30, July 3, 5-7, 10-13 Times: Wednesday-Saturday @ 8 PM; Sunday @ 2 PM Tickets: $12 general admission; $6 students & senior citizens For further information, contact the Box Office (412) 661-0244. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:05:41 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0450 Qs: Fair Youth; Notes & Queries; Robeson Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0450. Saturday, 15 June 1996. (1) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Thursday, 13 Jun 1996 16:14:57 -0700 Subj: The Fair Youth (2) From: Leo Daugherty Date: Friday, 14 Jun 1996 21:47:01 GMT Subj: Query: Notes & Queries Style Sheet (3) From: Bill Glaser Date: Saturday, 15 Jun 1996 01:10:28 -0400 Subj: Request for info (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Thursday, 13 Jun 1996 16:14:57 -0700 Subject: The Fair Youth Can anyone tell me how Wriothesley is pronounced for certain? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leo Daugherty Date: Friday, 14 Jun 1996 21:47:01 GMT Subject: Query: Notes & Queries Style Sheet Dear SHAKSPEReans: Does anybody happen to have a current version of the NOTES & QUERIES style sheet at hand? If so, I'm wondering if you could make me a copy and mail it to me. (I'll of course repay for copying and postage.) Please reply to me at . Thanks. Leo Daugherty (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Glaser Date: Saturday, 15 Jun 1996 01:10:28 -0400 Subject: Request for info If any SHAKSPERean can tell me where to find a recording of Paul Robeson's "Othello," I'd much appreciate an e-mail message or a posting. Thanks, Bill Glaser bylli@aol.com http://pages.map.com/~bylli ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:06:41 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0451 *Post Script* Call for Papers Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0451. Saturday, 15 June 1996. From: Lisa S. Starks Date: Friday, 14 Jun 1996 02:58:03 GMT Subject: *Post Script* Call for Papers To all Shakspereans: *Post Script* invites submissions for a special issue on Shakespeare and film. The editors seek papers that offer fresh and innovative approaches to films of Shakespeare's plays. All contemporary critical perspectives are welcome and encouraged, especially those related to film theory or hypertext. Interviews and book reviews relevant to the topic are also requested. The deadline for completed papers is November 18, 1996. Please submit three copies, with author information on separate pages, to Lisa S. Starks, Department of Literature and Languages, East Texas State University (as of Sept. 1996, Texas A&M University at Commerce), Commerce, TX 75429; FAX (903) 886-5980; or EMAIL Lisa_Starks@etsu.edu. For more information on the journal *Post Script: Essays in Film and the Humanities,* documentation style, paper length, etc., see the *MLA Directory of Periodicals* listing or contact me (Lisa Starks) at any of the addresses listed above. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:07:31 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0452 I Just LOVED This Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0452. Saturday, 15 June 1996. From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Thursday, 13 Jun 1996 20:14:23 -0700 Subject: I just LOVED this 58 Actual Newspaper Headlines (collected by actual journalists) ========================== 1. Something Went Wrong in Jet Crash, Expert Says 2. Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers 3. Safety Experts Say School Bus Passengers Should Be Belted 4. Drunk Gets Nine Months in Violin Case 5. Survivor of Siamese Twins Joins Parents 6. Farmer Bill Dies in House 7. Iraqi Head Seeks Arms 8. Is There a Ring of Debris around Uranus? 9. Stud Tires Out 10. Prostitutes Appeal to Pope 11. Panda Mating Fails; Veterinarian Takes Over 12. Soviet Virgin Lands Short of Goal Again 13. British Left Waffles on Falkland Islands 14. Lung Cancer in Women Mushrooms 15. Eye Drops off Shelf 16. Teacher Strikes Idle Kids 17. Reagan Wins on Budget, But More Lies Ahead 18. Squad Helps Dog Bite Victim 19. Shot Off Woman's Leg Helps Nicklaus to 66 20. Enraged Cow Injures Farmer with Ax 21. Plane Too Close to Ground, Crash Probe Told 22. Miners Refuse to Work after Death 23. Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant 24. Stolen Painting Found by Tree 25. Two Soviet Ships Collide, One Dies 26. Two Sisters Reunited after 18 Years in Checkout Counter 27. Killer Sentenced to Die for Second Time in 10 Years 28. Never Withhold Herpes Infection from Loved One 29. Drunken Drivers Paid $1000 in `84 30. War Dims Hope for Peace 31. If Strike isn't Settled Quickly, It May Last a While 32. Cold Wave Linked to Temperatures 33. Enfields Couple Slain; Police Suspect Homicide 34. Red Tape Holds Up New Bridge 35. Deer Kill 17,000 36. Typhoon Rips Through Cemetery; Hundreds Dead 37. Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge 38. New Study of Obesity Looks for Larger Test Group 39. Astronaut Takes Blame for Gas in Spacecraft 40. Kids Make Nutritious Snacks 41. Chef Throws His Heart into Helping Feed Needy 42. Arson Suspect is Held in Massachusetts Fire 43. British Union Finds Dwarfs in Short Supply 44. Ban On Soliciting Dead in Trotwood 45. Lansing Residents Can Drop Off Trees 46. Local High School Dropouts Cut in Half 47. New Vaccine May Contain Rabies 48. Man Minus Ear Waives Hearing 49. Deaf College Opens Doors to Hearing 50. Air Head Fired 51. Steals Clock, Faces Time 52. Prosecutor Releases Probe into Undersheriff 53. Old School Pillars are Replaced by Alumn 54. Bank Drive-in Window Blocked by Board 55. Hospitals are Sued by 7 Foot Doctors 56. Some Pieces of Rock Hudson Sold at Auction 57. Sex Education Delayed, Teachers Request Training 58. Include your Children when Baking Cookies ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 12:47:38 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0453 Re: What joke was that? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0453. Tuesday, 18 June 1996. From: Peter L. Groves Date: Monday, 17 Jun 1996 16:05:12 GMT+1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0440 Re: What joke was that? Jane A Thompson asks, *re* the Florence Amit posts, "By what means did readers decide to receive the postings as spoofs or as arguments? . . . If scholarship can be parodied, it must have not only surface conventions to tie the parody to the parent genre, but other contentual conventions which the parody importantly violates--or isn't that so?" It's an interesting question, but (speaking as the original cowardly mugger who gave rise to this particular thread) I have to 'fess up that I never took it for either parody or scholarship in the first place: I was only pretending to treat Ms Amit's contention (that Shakespeare's work is full of elaborate bilingual puns accessible only to someone with a sophisticated knowledge of Hebrew) as a joke, as a way of suggesting that it was not really a useful way of expending bandwidth. Without wishing to speak for him, I suspect this is true of Professor Hawkes as well. My original posting was facetious because (in my innocence) I didn't think Ms Amit's ideas required a formal refutation: who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel? I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "contentual conventions which the parody importantly violates", but I would expect a parody of scholarship to emphasize the *apparatus* of academic work--learned footnotes, quotations, etc--and to steer clear of large claims or revolutionary ideas ("Treatment of the semi-colon in the Folio text of *Love's Labours Lost*" would be nearer the mark). I would also expect a deliberate avoidance of illiteracies like the following: The Ed prefix, pronounced od, means 'until', pronounced aud, it means 'more', . . . 'more' combined with 'until' is suitable for Edmund, if we allow that Shakespeare has united the Hebrew with the Latin stem, "mund". 'More until death' suggests Edmund's greediness and destiny. (F. Amit, *Shakespeare's Hebrew*, henceforth SH, available from LISTSERV@WS.BowieState.edu) It will be interesting news to classicists that 'the Latin stem, "mund"' means 'death'. Ms Amit twice quotes Hamlet's famous first words as "A little more kin than kind", which misquotation elicits the following rhapsody: The k itself is a prefix meaning 'like' also c-ain is like while the ain can mean 'not' or 'nothing'. On the other hand ken can mean 'yes' . . . There are more meanings such as like an eye or like a fountain. The K-ind may mean like an ornament or something worn, or bound. Also if we dare, as it is customary in Hebrew speech, to include the opening weak vowel into the pronunciation of the preposition, what results are like a dike or heap and like movement. So then Hamlet may be saying . . . 'Though I bear a likeness to you it is not binding' or 'I am like an eye that sees rather than a decoration that is flourished' or 'I am more a fountain that wells up from within than a dike that contains standing waters' or 'I am more affirmative than changeable'. (SH) Ms Amit's postings represent not a spoof of scholarship but a perfectly serious contribution to a quite different genre, which might be called Advanced Rosicrucianism. Shakespeare has always had a huge attraction for people who (without wishing to be offensive) one can only describe as cranks. I don't want to sound superior about this: we all find Shakespeare's work so fascinating, and yet know so little of his life (and almost nothing of him as a man), that we project our fantasies and our anxieties onto those blank spaces: every age remakes him in its own image (the "Shakespeare our contemporary" phenomenon). But some of us go a little further in this process of remaking: followers of J. T. Looney, for example, refuse to believe that an upstart provincial actor could have written *Hamlet*, and seek to father the plays on the suitably aristocratic Earl of Oxford; others see the author as Bacon, or Marlowe, or Queen Elizabeth. Ms Amit's obsession surely fall into this class of phenomena; it resembles the Baconian or Oxfordian fantasy that the plays are actually a labyrinthine cryptogram concealing the identity of their true author. There is nothing wrong with this sort of amiable eccentricity--in fact I enjoyed Ms Amit's postings, just as I am fascinated by the publications of the Flat Earth Society--but it shouldn't be allowed to masquerade as scholarly discourse. Peter Groves Department of English Monash University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 12:57:06 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0454 Re: Henry V in the Park Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0454. Tuesday, 18 June 1996. (1) From: John W. Mahon Date: Monday, 17 Jun 96 Subj: SHK 7.0446 Re: Henry V in the Park (2) From: Brooke Brod Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 1996 10:08:04 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0446 Re: Henry V in the Park (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John W. Mahon Date: Monday, 17 Jun 96 19:20:55 EDT Subject: SHK 7.0446 Re: Henry V in the Park Monday, 17 June 1996 Dear SHAKSPEReans, I hope people won't mind my answering my own question, but, heck, this is a slow time of year on SHAKSPER. After asking about Adrian Noble's 1984 production of HENRY V, I did some research and came up with the answer to my question: Noble did indeed include the "Kill the prisoners" episode in his production, and he made it clear that Henry violated the rules of chivalric engagement, as Shakespeare's text shows, merely because he suspected that the French were re-grouping and his army remained at a serious numerical disadvantage. My Iona colleague and co-editor on THE SHAKESPEARE NEWSLETTER, Tom Pendleton, referred me to an article by Chris Fitter in SHAKESPEARE LEFT AND RIGHT, ed. Ivo Kamps (New York: Routledge, 1991). In "A Tale of Two Branaghs: HENRY V, Ideology, and the Mekong Agincourt," Fitter compares Noble's 1984 RSC production, in which Branagh performed the title role, to Branagh's 1989 film version; he argues that Noble's production is faithful to what he sees as Shakespeare's essentially subversive intention while Branagh, who deletes the "Kill the prisoners" episode, in this and other instances "rehabilitates" Henry V against the intent of the original. Fitter concludes: "What Shakespeare has demystified, Branagh, persuasively, affably, immorally, has resanctified" (275). A less tendentious view that also supports Noble's "subversive" reading can be found in the excellent program book issued by the RSC at the time of the production: this overview includes objective essays by several historians and useful excerpts from contemporary accounts of the Battle of Agincourt. Perhaps more interesting, however, are some other historical details I discovered as I explored my files on HENRY V. In the current NEW YORKER piece, Lawrence Weschler describes how Douglas Hughes has decided to stage the crucial passage. Pistol and his recent French captive, le Fer, will be among those following the king as he enters in 4.6. When Henry gives the order, "Then every soldier kill his prisoners," there will be a moment of stunned inaction, Henry will repeat the order, and then he will look meaningfully at Exeter as he delivers the next line, "Give the word through." Pistol will be the first to act, crying "Coup la gorge" as in the bad quarto version of the play and simultaneously cutting le Fer's throat, adding, for good measure, a shouted "Hal," to make certain that the king has observed his obedient behavior. The textual scholars will gag on all of this, but it will be interesting to see how it plays. When Shakespeare in Central Park last offered HENRY V in 1984 (the same year in which the RSC mounted Adrian Noble's production at Stratford), the play was directed by Wilford Leach, and Kevin Kline played the title role. Leach included the "Kill the prisoners" passage and had Kline cut the throat of Monsieur le Fer, but he undermined its impact. In his review, Frank Rich notes that both director and star seemed uncomfortable with the bloodthirsty Henry of the original text: "The ambivalence continues after intermission, when Henry's cruel order to slay the French prisoners is preceded--and ostensibly justified--by a graphic, onstage depiction of an equivalent French atrocity" (THE NEW YORK TIMES, 6 July 1984). Reviewing the same production several weeks later, Benedict Nightingale offered some interesting reflections: "I always find myself puzzled and disturbed by the passage in which he [Henry V] orders the killing of the prisoners taken at Agincourt. His followers interpret this as proper retaliation for the murder of the boys guarding the English baggage; and so, I suspect, do most members of the audience. But if you listen carefully, you'll find that Henry learns about that atrocity only AFTER he's issued his command, and promptly uses it to justify a massacre actually ordered because the French had "reinforced their scattered men." Is this confusion and clumsiness on Shakespeare's part? Or could it be a sly, subterranean attempt, of the kind noted by John Arden, to suggest that Henry is more the unscrupulous politician than he seems? It's hard, terribly hard, to reach across the centuries into Shakespeare's mind, which possibly thought it reasonable to kill your captives if your enemy is regrouping. Yet there seems more than a little irony in the triumphant cry of the soldier who first mistakes Henry's motives: "Wherefore the king most worthily hath caused every soldier to cut his prisoner's throat. Oh, 'tis a gallant king!" (THE NEW YORK TIMES, 15 July 1984, page 3 of "Arts and Leisure" section). Nightingale's comments will echo in my mind when I attend this summer's production of HENRY V in Central Park--I'm sure someone will supply the precise dates, but the play is already in previews and is scheduled for performances through most of July, I believe. John W. Mahon Iona College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brooke Brod Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 1996 10:08:04 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0446 Re: Henry V in the Park Henry V begins previews today, June 18th and will run through July 14th. The cost is NOTHING. You can line up for tickets at the Delacorte Theatre in Central Park. The lines can get long depending on the popularity of the show (people camped out overnight for the Tempest last year), however, 9-10am is usually a good time to get there, bring reading material and a cup of coffee or tea. The box office opens at 1pm, each person in line is entitled to two tickets, they will not give you more, and then you just return that evening for the performance. A limited number of tickets are passed out at the Public Theatre on Lafayette St. below Astor Pl. and this year on specific days tickets will be passed out in the other bouroughs, call the Public box office to find out. Timon of Athens will open sometime in August. See you in the park, Brooke Brod ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 13:06:00 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0456 RSC Reviews: *JC* and *Mac.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0456. Tuesday, 18 June 1996. From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 17 Jun 96 12:27:00 EDT Subject: RSC Reviews Dear SHAKSPERians, I just returned from London, where I saw two RSC productions: _Julius Caesar_ at the Barbican and _Macbeth_ at the RST in Stratford. In case anyone is thinking of going to either of these, or is simply curious about them, I'll offer capsule reviews. The _Caesar_ was thoroughly disappointing, I'm afraid. I was worried about the quality of the production when I noticed that the publicity--both text and pictures--put a lot of emphasis on the bloodshed, and my fears were well-founded. Peter Hall chose to highlight the horrific: lots of blood jetting out from Caesar's toga and from some surprising places in the set; ominous thunder-claps everytime someone is killed (an effect that quickly became tiresome). All of this might have been all right if it had not been the only ruling idea in the production, but aside from these rather lame attempts at atmospherics, this _Caesar_ was almost completely lacking in point of view. The neither-here-nor-there quality in the interpretation didn't surprise me much (Hall has sometimes been criticised for this in the past) but the generally low level of the acting was a shock: lots of quavering intonations and verbal "tricks" generally superseded meaning and emotional grounding. John Nettles, as Brutus, was perhaps most guilty of this, peppering his verse with strange pauses and abrupt shifts in volume which seemed to come from nowhere and then vanish as abruptly. Hugh Quarshy's Mark Antony seemed to be a work still in progress, as he vacillated between fiery, comitted patriot and cackling, Iago-like manipulator. Perhaps the low point in acting and directing concerned Hall's use of the crowds. Opting neither for naturalistic crowd scenes (i.e. dividing up some of the lines ascribed to "ALL" and allowing some ad-libbing) or more stylized treatment (formalizing the speaking in unison and the movement), Hall chose the middle ground, attempting to make the unison sound natural, and the effect was quite comic. I'll end with some plaudits: Julian Glover's Cassius was wonderful--focussed, driven, grounded--as was the Casca (I've forgotten the actor's name). And if there was one "Hallmark" in evidence in this play, it was the speed of the production: astonishing scene changes (John Gunter) usually took place in less than a second, with actors moving from the last word in one scene to the first word in the next without missing a beat--very exciting. Far more satisfying was Tim Albery's _Macbeth_. Though the horror in this text certainly seems more overt than that in _Caesar_, this was by far the more restrained of the two. Seeming to take place in a kind of Prussian operating-room, this was the coldest, most formal _Macbeth_ I have ever seen. I found, however, that the horror seemed to grow by being understated and internalized. The acting was solid all the way around, with Roger Allam and Brid Brennan as the Macbeths particularly impressive. Brid Brennan did start on a rather high pitch (just once I would like to see a Lady M. invoking the help of the spirits because she really _needs_ it--most seem to walk on already endowed with all of the strength and cruelty they could possibly need) but she managed to go on to find other levels as the play progressed. Anyway, I promised _capsule_ reviews, so I'll cut this short. I'm interested to know if anyone agrees or disagrees with these observations. Best Wishes, David Skeele ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 13:09:58 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0457 Re: Shylock; Wriothesley Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0457. Tuesday, 18 June 1996. (1) From: Milla Riggio Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 1996 04:01:57 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0440 Re: Shylock (2) From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 96 10:36:00 0BS Subj: Wriothesley (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 1996 04:01:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0440 Re: Shylock Regarding the query and conversation about what Shylock "means" when he says "If I can catch him once upon the hip/ I will feed fat the ancient grudge Ibear him.": In the upcoming MLA book on Teaching Shakespeare through Performance (which I'm editing), Michael Kahn in the Preface says something to the effect that in directing Shakespeare one of the hardest lessons he has to teach actors is that they character means what s/he says. It's difficult for actors trained to be always asking about the latent "subtext" of a speech to mean just and only what the lines SAY, says Michael. As a character, he says, one has a life, a past, and so forth, but when the character speaks in Shakespeare, s/he MEANS JUST WHAT THE LINES SAY. You MUST mean that and nothing else, says this one director, who goes on to suggest that if the plays had "subtexts," they would be much shorter! Milla Riggio (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 96 10:36:00 0BS Subject: Wriothesley To the best of my knowledge 'Wriothesley' is pronounced 'Risley', and is a shibboleth-type name not uncommon amongst prominent Elizabethans and Jacobeans - cf Sir William Cecil being 'Sisil' and Lady Mary Wroth being 'Worth'. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 13:00:03 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0455 Q: Hamlet in Denmark Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0455. Tuesday, 18 June 1996. From: Dom Saliani Date: Monday, 17 Jun 1996 15:26:15 -0700 (MST) Subject: Hamlet in Denmark Dear SHAKSPEReans A friend will be in Denmark July 20 to August 11. The last time he was there he missed by days, a performance of *Hamlet* that was being performed outside the walls of Kronborg Castle at Elsinore. Does anyone know if there will be any performances of *Hamlet* this summer? Any info would be most appreciated. Dom Saliani ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 13:45:30 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0458 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: DISCUSS INDEX_7 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0458. Wednesday, 19 June 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, June 19, 1996 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: DISCUSS INDEX_7 In May I explained that after we migrated SHAKSPER from its mainframe (VM) platform at the University of Toronto to its Unix platform at Bowie State, I discovered that the Unix version did not currently support all of the functions to which we had been accustomed. Perhaps, the most lamentable loss was the Database Function. The Database Function enabled members to search past logs of discussions by key words. The upcoming revision of the LISTSERV software, due in late 1996, is supposed to port this and other functions to the Unix version. I also recommended that members use the Discussion Indexes to assist in locating discussions of past topics until the Database Function is available in Unix LISTSERV. The Discussion Indexes are indexes of past discussions by year. month, and digest number (Sample below). Today, DISCUSS INDEX_7, the index of discussions for 1996, is available with entries from January 1996 through May 1996. I will try to keep this index update by the month. Now, indexes of all SHAKSPER digests from 1990 through May 1996 are on the Fileserver: DISCUSS INDEX_1 1990 DISCUSS INDEX_2 1991 DISCUSS INDEX_3 1992 DISCUSS INDEX_4 1993 DISCUSS INDEX_5 1994 DISCUSS INDEX_6 1995 DISCUSS INDEX_7 1996 These are large files. If you order them, you may wish to download them and search them with a word processor. To retrieve, for example, "The 1995 Discussion Index", send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET DISCUSS INDEX_7". Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, please contact the editor at or . ***************************************************************************** DISCUSS.INDEX_7 January 1996 SHK 7.0001 SHAKSPER Is Back SHK 7.0002 Re: Development of Individualism SHK 7.0003 Abhorson; Voice-over Hamlet?; Renaissance typefaces SHK 7.0004 LISTSERV Commands SHK 7.0005 SHAKSPER FILES SHK 7.0006 New Site for MHRA Web Pages SHK 7.0007 Qs: Rom Film; Anthologies; Screenplay; Matus; Questions SHK 7.0008 Re: *Shakespeare on Silent Film* SHK 7.0009 New Discovery SHK 7.0010 Files on Fileserver SHK 7.0011 Files on Fileserver Now Available SHK 7.0012 Humanitarian Assistance Requested SHK 7.0013 Announcing an Interdisciplinary Conference SHK 7.0014 Sidney's Apology SHK 7.0015 Re: Screenplays; Voice-Over; Ball's Book SHK 7.0016 New on the SHAKSPER FileServer: AM_REP TEMPEST SHK 7.0017 Request for Essays for the SHAKSPER Fileserver SHK 7.0018 Re: Development of Individualism SHK 7.0019 Qs: *Hamlet*; University Wits; Handfasting Illustrations SHK 7.0020 Re: McKellen's R3; Matus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 13:57:09 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0459 Michael Kahn's Comment Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0459. Wednesday, 19 June 1996. (1) From: Thomas E. Ruddick Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 96 13:59:37 EST Subj: RE: SHK 7.0457 Re: Shylock (2) From: Rick Jones Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 1996 13:39:13 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0457 Re: Shylock (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 1996 15:43:44 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0457 Re: Shylock (4) From: Elizabeth Kent Burdick Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 1996 10:35:44 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0457 Re: Shylock; Milla Riggio's comment (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas E. Ruddick Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 96 13:59:37 EST Subject: RE: SHK 7.0457 Re: Shylock Due respect to Milla Riggio and Michael Kahn, but I am put off by the pontifical quality of the comments we were recently provided from the preface of the forthcoming MLA book. Kahn may be a competent director, but for him to assert "you MUST mean that (only what the characters say) and nothing else" demonstrates, for me, an appalling lack of recognition of current acting practice. When Kahn has the sort of performance vita that Kenneth Branagh has achieved, he *still* won't be entitled to make such a blanket statement! If the character is not played with attention to subtexts (which are present in the uncertainties of all characters, not just Shakespeare's) then we are left with overly simple mouthed words. For a great look at how different interpretations impact a good Shakespearean performer's reading of a text, you might take a look at Patrick Stewart's comments on his performances of Enobarbus in two different RSC productions of "Antony and Cleopatra" in the videotape series "Preparing to Perform Shakespeare". "TR" Thomas E. Ruddick (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 1996 13:39:13 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0457 Re: Shylock Milla Riggio says that Michael Kahn says "something to the effect that in directing Shakespeare one of the hardest lessons he has to teach actors is that they character means what s/he says. It's difficult for actors trained to be always asking about the latent "subtext" of a speech to mean just and only what the lines SAY, says Michael. As a character, he says, one has a life, a past, and so forth, but when the character speaks in Shakespeare, s/he MEANS JUST WHAT THE LINES SAY. You MUST mean that and nothing else, says this one director, who goes on to suggest that if the plays had "subtexts," they would be much shorter!" OK, I'll bite. How DOES this sanctimony advance the argument? The question is whether Shylock intends, in Act I, to kill Antonio if given the opportunity. HE DOESN'T SAY, one way or the other. He wants revenge. How far he'll go to get it is left up to the (dare I invoke Shakespeare's profession?) actor to decide. Shylock says he wants a pound of flesh. He also calls the contract "a merry bond". Which to believe? Perhaps both, and Shakespare's plays were written not by the actor from Stratford or by the Earl of Oxford, but by Luigi Pirandello, who miraculously transported himself back through time. The acting/directing process is always, inevitably, about making choices. Sometimes those choices "work", sometimes not. But pretending those choices don't exist is, to my mind, a guarantee of disaster. I'm beginning to understand why I so loathed the only Michael Kahn-directed Shakespeare I've ever seen. Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 1996 15:43:44 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0457 Re: Shylock >Michael Kahn in the Preface says something to the effect >that in directing Shakespeare one of the hardest lessons he has to teach actors >is that the character means what s/he says. . . . As a character, he says, one >has a life, a past, and so forth, but when the character speaks in Shakespeare, >s/he MEANS JUST WHAT THE LINES SAY. You MUST mean that and nothing else, says >this one director, who goes on to suggest that if the plays had "subtexts," >they would be much shorter! There are loads and loads -- cart loads -- of problems with Michael Kahn's approach. Lines, of course, don't "say" anything; the lines are said by actors, and they are said in different ways by different actors with different meanings. The pun was Shakespeare's fatal Cleopatra -- and when we hear a pun, we entertain the possibility of various meanings. And where does meaning lie? In the words themselves, in the voices of the actors, or in the minds of the auditors? Doesn't the auditor ultimately determine what meaning she takes from the spoken lines? Can meaning be circumscribed? And editors also get into the act: what does Hamlet say, "O that this too too sallied flesh would melt," or "Oh that this too too solid Flesh, would melt," or "O that this too much grieu'd and sallied flesh/Would melt to nothing" (Bertram and Kliman, eds, 32-33)? Skeptically yours, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Kent Burdick Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 1996 10:35:44 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0457 Re: Shylock; Milla Riggio's comment Mario Siletti, my Shakespeare acting teacher at the National Shakespeare Conservatory in New York said much the same thing - subtext in Shakespeare is right there in front of you - it is the text. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 19:50:51 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0460 Re: What joke? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0460. Wednesday, 19 June 1996. (1) From: Wes Folkerth Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 1996 15:44:13 +0000 Subj: Amo Amit (2) From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Wednesday, 19 Jun 1996 10:30:34 -0400 Subj: Re: What joke? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wes Folkerth Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 1996 15:44:13 +0000 Subject: Amo Amit I would like to continue my own Looney, tongue-in-cheek assertion that Professor Hawkes is actually Florence Amit by noting that the author of Telmah's own name anagrams into "He knew a secret," and that of his alter-ego into "No farce til me." Wes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Wednesday, 19 Jun 1996 10:30:34 -0400 Subject: Re: What joke? I agree with Jane A. Thompson that the most interesting questions raised by Florence Amit's contributions (and those of her detractors and defenders) have to do with the conventions and contexts that make parody possible and recognizable. As her last parenthetical hints, the variety of Shakespearean criticism (and of Shakespeare scholars and hobbiests) makes the task of answering those questions challenging, at least. One thing this list makes clear is that anything insistent or repetitious enough becomes a parody of itself. Heaven knows the authorship debates on this list are perfectly inimitable parodies of themselves. Regards, --Chris Fassler ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 20:00:08 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0461 Re: Comedy; Henry V; Milton; Wriothesley Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0461. Wednesday, 19 June 1996. (1) From: Barrett Fisher Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 1996 12:33:35 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Shakespearean Comedy (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 19 Jun 1996 10:08:27 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0454 Re: Henry V in the Park (3) From: Rebecca C Totaro Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 1996 22:38:16 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0448 Re: Milton (4) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 1996 12:02:21 -0700 Subj: Wriothesley (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barrett Fisher Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 1996 12:33:35 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Shakespearean Comedy I'd like to pick up the thread from last week in response to Mario Ghezzi's inquiry about help with teaching Shakespearean comedy: I find Susan Snyder's book on tragedy very helpful in identifying the main characteristics of Shakespearan comedy. It's called The Comic Matrix of Shakespeare's Tragedies (Princeton, 1979) and is equally stimulating in teaching both tragedies and comedies. I have also used a somewhat neglected book by Roland Frye: Shakespeare: The Art of the Dramatist (Houghton Miflin, 1970). I concur with those who have already mentioned Frye, Barber, and Evans. Barrett Fisher Bethel College (MN) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 19 Jun 1996 10:08:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0454 Re: Henry V in the Park Regarding the nature of Henry V as portrayed by Shakespeare: Henry's orders to kill the prisoners aren't the only evidence of an unpleasant tough-mindedness. The author makes a point of Hal's execution of his erstwhile drinking buddy when he's caught robbing a church. Those wedded to the orthodox chronology will disagree, but I see a great deal to recommend the possibility that the version of HV in the First Folio was a reworking in the nineties of a play written originally as pro-nationalist propaganda intended to rally playgoers for the coming battle with the Spanish in the mid eighties. The passionate jingoism ("we few, we happy few..."), the dramatization of how disparate elements of the community, Welsh, Irish, Scottish, can fight together for the all important common cause (we laugh, but are moved nonetheless), the warning that desertion, pillaging, and treason carry a mortal pricetag, all point to a work written with a subtext that was very important at the time. Shakespeare's Henry was a king with a purpose, to rally the English for the coming battle with Spain by reminding them of a similar victory centuries earlier over France. "We did it before and we can do it again." Interesting that the English used this play for the same purpose in the early 1940's, when they provided Olivier with the wherewithall to produce an expensive film version in the teeth of economic cutbacks, and for the same reason. "We did it before, and we can do it again." Stephanie Hughes (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rebecca C Totaro Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 1996 22:38:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0448 Re: Milton > Lisa Hopkins > > Would C.S. Lewis's _Perelandra_ (later reprinted as _Voyage to Venus_) count > as a loose adaptation of _Paradise Lost_? _Perelandra_ is much more a loose (or not so loose) adaptation of Dante's _Paradiso_, as the other parts of the trilogy likewise correspond. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 18 Jun 1996 12:02:21 -0700 Subject: Wriothesley I am imformed by two people that Wriothesley is pronounced Risley, and I believe that also. The point of this is that the Fair Youth of the Sonnets may be Henry W., but there is no clue to it in his name, which some people like to pronounce Rosely to compare with the Beauty's Rose of Sonnet no. 1. One person asked if I knew the rumor that Princess Di was connected to the Wriothesley family. Don't know, is it so? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 20:02:41 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0462 Q: Fin de siecle texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0462. Wednesday, 19 June 1996. From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Wednesday, 19 Jun 1996 10:04:06 -0400 Subject: Fin de siecle texts I'm beginning to develop an undergrad honors seminar on the turn of the century, and I'm trying to put together a reading list of all kinds of texts (primary and secondary) produced in and dealing with the 1590s and 1600s. One problem is selecting texts that are readily available in print or easily (and legally) reproducible. (_Hamlet_ is an obvious choice in the former category.) I welcome suggestions, including texts that I might find in our modest library and put on reserve for a small class (15 students or so). I want to make use of all kinds of texts: plays, poetry, histories, treatises and tracts, ballads, broadsides, scholarly articles and monographs from any discipline, and anything else that suggests itself to you. Also, if you have any particular wisdom or experience in putting this kind of reading list together, please feel free to share it. Please send your suggestions directly to me (FASSLERC@winthrop.edu), unless you think your response would be of special interest to the list. Thanks in advance. --Chris Fassler========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:02:59 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0463 Re: Shylock Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0463. Friday, 21 June 1996. From: Jesus Cora Date: Wednesday, 19 Jun 1996 19:37:49 UTC+0100 Subject: SHK 7.0457 Re: Shylock Dear SHAKSPEAReans, I ignore whether this idea of mine regarding Shylock's meaning has already been aired or not, but here it goes. I have always interpreted Shylock's words as a reference to fencing as in a duel (of course, Shylock bears a 'fat grudge' on Antonio). Now I think of it, I even tend to relate it to the fencing combat in Hamlet where the Prince of Denmark is also described by Gertrude as being fat. Are these the ramblings of my mind or fencing and overweight were related in Shakespeare's mind? This is for Lisa Hopkins: not to mention Gloucester (Gloster), Glamis (Glams) and changeable Perdita (P'erdita / Perd'ita, which syllable is stressed? For me, as a Spaniard, Perd'ita -stress on the second syllable- makes more sense) Regards to all. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:07:12 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0464 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0464. Friday, 21 June 1996. From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Wednesday, 19 Jun 96 22:07:47 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0459 Michael Kahn's Comment Hey, guys, I think we should notice that what people SAY they do and what they actually can be observed doing ain't necessarily congruent in the world of A-R-T. (And Dan Traister just sent me a long list of guides for the perplexed Depa rtment Chair, including "I have seen the truth, and it just doesn't make sense.") "Text" and "subtext" mean radically different things depending on which acting book I've just read or seminar I've wandered through. Michael Kahn, delicious creature that he be, has turned out some of the finest and most subtexturanial productions I've ever seen. And he's flogged home some stinkeroos. How to get actors to "act" may involve a director in all kinds of educational strategies to break them out of a particular settled, safe way of working. Try a little laughter. Joke along with Michael Kahn. Sing along with Patrick Stewart. See what works. But try to hold the lacerating rhetorics for the real nasties who would keep us from putting plays on at all. Steve Urknosensowitz, English, CCNY ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:09:06 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0465 Re: Fin de siecle texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0465. Friday, 21 June 1996. From: Lawrence Manley Date: Thursday, 20 Jun 1996 10:24:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0462 Q: Fin de siecle texts In response to Chris Fassler's query about fins de siecle texts, I would mention Elaine Scarry's recent edited essay collection _Fins de siecle: English Poetry in 1590, 1690, 1790, 1890, 1990_ (Johns Hopkins, 1995). There are some interesting suggestions there in Margreta de Grazia's piece on "Fin-de Siecle Renaissance England." Lawrence Manley Yale University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:20:03 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0466 CFP: Shakespeare and Ireland Conference Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0466. Friday, 21 June 1996. From: Dennis Kennedy Date: Friday, 21 Jun 1996 11:36:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: Shakespeare and Ireland Conference SECOND POSTING Shakespeare and Ireland A conference at Trinity College Dublin 21 to 23 March 1997 CALL FOR PAPERS In the debate over the colonial and post-colonial relationship between England and Ireland, Shakespeare has been a specially significant focus and contested critical site. His plays have been performed in Ireland since the seventeenth century, and from the eighteenth century Ireland produced some of the most significant of Shakespearean actors and scholars. His work has been a key part of the literary and educational canon in Ireland since the nineteenth century. Edward Dowden, appointed first Professor of English Literature at Trinity College in 1867, was the most influential interpreter of Shakespeare in his time. In the twentieth century the project of many of the major Irish writers in English, notably Shaw, Yeats and Joyce, involved an imaginative re-fashioning of Shakespeare. Irish productions in the modern period by Anew McMaster, Micheal Mac Liammoir and Hilton Edwards, represented a remarkable adaptation of English traditions of staging Shakespeare to Irish theatrical conditions. The three-day conference at Trinity College, Dublin, jointly sponsored by the School of English and the Samuel Beckett Centre for Drama and Theatre Studies, will bring together Renaissance scholars, theatre historians, cultural analysts, and theatre practitioners to explore the varied aspects of Shakespeare and Ireland. Performances of Shakespeare are planned at the Abbey Theatre and elsewhere to coincide with the meeting. Other associated events include a Shakespeare film season at the Irish Film Centre and exhibitions of Irish Shakespeareana at the Irish Theatre Archive and the Trinity College Dublin Library. Plenary sessions and smaller panels will take place on Friday and Saturday and on Sunday morning; the final afternoon will be devoted to panels on theatre practice. A volume of essays arising out of the conference is planned, most likely to be published by Cambridge University Press. Plenary speakers will include Terence Brown, Philip Edwards, Ania Loomba, and others. Proposals for papers are invited on any aspect of the topic, including Ireland and Renaissance drama Producing and reproducing Shakespeare, 1660 to the present Shakespeare, Ireland and the canon Colonial, post-colonial, or neo-colonial Shakespeare Shakespeare and the Irish literary imagination Shakespeare and the contemporary Irish theatre Proposals (of approximately 250 words) for papers lasting about 20 minutes should arrive by 15 September 1996 and be sent to: Professor Nicholas Grene School of English Trinity College Dublin 2 Ireland Fax: (+353.1) 671.7114 Further information is available on (+353.1) 608.2301 or email Dennis Kennedy at dkennedy@tcd.ie Conference Committee: Nicholas Grene and Dennis Kennedy (Trinity College, co-organizers), Karin McCully (Abbey Theatre), Christopher Murray (University College Dublin), Lynne Parker (Rough Magic Theatre Company) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:15:32 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0467 Re: The SHAKSPER Advisory Board Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0467. Monday, 24 June 1996. From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 21 Jun 1996 10:31:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0370 The SHAKSPER Advisory Board Due to a long desired sabbatical I will be offline for some months, so wish to say how much I have enjoyed the past year, learning, chatting, and crossing swords with the listmembers of SHAKSPER. I think it far and away the most interesting venue on the internet that I have experienced. I have taken note of the newly appointed members of the board and their books, and intend to read as many of them as I can. I am sure that this will be a marvelous education in current thinking about Shakespeare. In parting I have one request. Please give the authorship question some breathing room. If you are in a position whereby you can encourage or discourage discussion and particularly research, please adopt the noble policy "let me not be an obstacle." If you yourself think the question of no value, please allow those who do to follow up on their ideas. I know of one highly placed and frequently published academic who will admit to a strong interest in Oxford's candidacy, but who assures us that to mention it would be career suicide. I know of a brilliant student who never got a grade lower than a B plus in anything, who got a C in a theater class due to a paper promoting the authorship of Oxford. There are many such stories. I do not know for a fact that the Earl of Oxford wrote the Shakespeare canon, but I do know that unless and until paid researchers who are open to the possibility begin to seek out answers to the many anomalies, questions and confusions that have given rise to the authorship issue, it will never go away. Thanks to the many listmembers who have sparred with me, offered me so graciously information I sought, and who have encouraged me privately. And thanks Hardy and all who keep this list going. I know it's a lot of work. Stephanie Hughes P.S. I will send my new mailing address to SNL as soon as I know what it is. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:19:02 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0468 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0468. Monday, 24 June 1996. (1) From: Ed Pechter Date: Friday, 21 Jun 1996 12:22:41 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0464 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment (2) From: Rinda Frye Date: Sunday, 23 Jun 96 17:27:11 EDT Subj: SHK 7.0464 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pechter Date: Friday, 21 Jun 1996 12:22:41 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0464 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment Big up to S. Urkowitz for his comment about Michael Kahn's comment. For one thing, as I remember, we don't have Kahn's words so much as Milla's version. But the more important point is the one Steve makes: theater people talk theater-talk. They sometimes use the same words normal people (like us) use, "Shakespeare," "character"--but differently. U of Iowa P just published an essay collection called Textual & Theatrical Shakespeare: Questions of Evidence whose contributors talk about this matter. There's a brilliant essay by W. B. Worthen at the end that's dead-on relevant, called "Reading Actors Reading." Every one on the list should buy two copies of this book, one for themselves, one for a friend. I happen to know the editor of the book, he's buying a new house and is really hard up for money. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rinda Frye Date: Sunday, 23 Jun 96 17:27:11 EDT Subject: SHK 7.0464 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment If I may just add to the discussion about subtext in Shakespeare, often when acting coaches or directors caution actors against "playing subtext" in Shakespeare, they are trying to disuade them from the habit of thinking/feeling a line first and then speaking the lines almost as an afterthought. This is a common habit with American actors because it often gives the appearance of a "natural" delivery, but with Shakespeare, as I'm sure you know, such an approach is deadly. Usually this caution against playing subtext is not intended to keep the actor from making interpretive choices--that would be silly at best. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:21:13 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0469 Oregon Shakespeare Festival, Ashland Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0469. Monday, 24 June 1996. From: Thomas H. Blackburn) Date: Friday, 21 Jun 1996 12:36:28 +0500 Subject: Oregon Shakespeare Festival, Ashland The 1996 Shakespeare Season at the Ashland, Oregon, Shakespeare Festival Though I will be writing a more complete review for SHAKESPEARE IN THE CLASSROOM (to appear in the fall), I want to encourage any of you who can possibly get to Ashland to indulge in this season's offerings. My wife and I saw four plays in three days without surfeit and with delight. The highlight for me was CORIOLANUS, in a production which masked none of the play's ambiguous attitudes towards both the plebian demands and rights and the hero's personal courage and integrity (and Volumnia's powers). As Coriolanus, Derrick Lee Weeden earned a standing ovation for a protrayal that managed at once to be moving and frightening in his personal anguish and in his arrogance and capacity for impersonal violence. The production of LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST maintained a pace and a level of visual support for both the verbal humor and the amorous interplay which made the play work with unexpected liveliness for a work which often seems to readers a dated piece of extravagance. ROMEO AND JULIET survived an overly acrobatic Romeo, partly because of Vilma Silva's feisty Juliet, and without resorting to gimicks lent decent new life to the play's familiar language. The one weak spot in THE WINTER'S TALE, to my taste at least, was Perdita (probably because of a powerless rendering of the flower speeches), the only one of the three plays to be produced indoors at the Bowman Theatre rather than under the stars at the Elixabethan. Though each of these plays was directed by a different person, all of them showed a willingness to mingle stylized movements and patterns with naturalistic ones when the stylization would help make clear and present the heart of the action. As I discovered last year, the depth of the repertory company means that supporting roles are almost always as well-played as the principals (one plays principal may well be the next's spear carrier, as it were), and the pleasure of hearing the lines clearly and sensitively ennunciated without the aid and distortion of electronic amplication cannot be underestimated. Get there if you can! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:25:32 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0470 Re: Parody; Names Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0470. Monday, 24 June 1996. (1) From: Jane A Thompson Date: Friday, 21 Jun 1996 17:21:39 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Humouring Scholarship (2) From: Peter L Groves Date: Monday, 24 Jun 1996 12:55:19 GMT+1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0463 Re: Shylock (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jane A Thompson Date: Friday, 21 Jun 1996 17:21:39 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Humouring Scholarship Shortly after posting my questions about parody and Shakespeare scholarship, I ran across the following in an article: "Many cases," [Stephen Orgel] writes, "were recorded of women becoming men through the pressure of some great activity." The endnote to this large claim refers not to women, but to alligators, but as the previous note referred the reader to Laqueur's _Representations_ article and to Greenblatt's "Fiction and Friction," we can be reasonably sure that the "many cases" in question are in fact the single case of Marie-Germaine, cited by both Pare and Montaigne. (Hutson 145) This quote, I realize, seems even daffier out of context. Perhaps the endnote about alligators also made better sense in context, but I rather doubt it. All this seems to me exactly the kind of thing that makes a good parody hard to find. Source: Hutson, Lorna. "On not Being Deceived: Rhetoric and the Body in _Twelfth Night_." _Texas Studies in Literature and Language_ 38:2. 140-147. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L Groves Date: Monday, 24 Jun 1996 12:55:19 GMT+1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0463 Re: Shylock Jesus Cora asks > > This is for Lisa Hopkins: not to mention Gloucester (Gloster), Glamis (Glams) > and changeable Perdita (P'erdita / Perd'ita, which syllable is stressed? For > me, as a Spaniard, Perd'ita -stress on the second syllable- makes more sense) The evidence of the metre is mercifully unamiguous: for Shakespeare, at least, it is invariably PERdita. The name people come to blows over (in my experience) is Coriolanus. Peter Groves, Department of English, Monash University, ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:27:37 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0471 Q: Shakespeare/Joyce Quote Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0471. Monday, 24 June 1996. From: Leo Daugherty Date: Sunday, 23 Jun 1996 21:51:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Shakespeare/Joyce Quote Query Dear SHAKSPEReans: Can anybody tell me the source (in Joyce, I think) of the phrase "The sonnets of Shakespeare are the last refuge of minds gone round the bend"? (I'm sure the quote is nowhere near exact as I've given it, by the way.) Many thanks in advance to anyone who can and will; I've been wondering about this from time to time for years, but now want to put it in an article. Leo Daugherty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:37:37 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0472 Qs: Shaw on _Much Ado_; New York Bookshops Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0472. Tuesday, 25 June 1996. (1) From: Al Cacicedo Date: Monday, 24 Jun 1996 14:10:25 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Q: Shaw on _Much Ado_ (2) From: Jesus Cora Date: Monday, 24 Jun 1996 18:59:10 UTC+0100 Subj: New York Bookshops (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Al Cacicedo Date: Monday, 24 Jun 1996 14:10:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Q: Shaw on _Much Ado_ A student last semester told me that somewhere or other G. B. Shaw says that all one needs to know about _Much Ado_ is the title. I've been looking for the source ever since, in vain. Does anyone know where Shaw said so infamous a thing? Yours, Al Cacicedo (alc@joe.alb.edu) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Monday, 24 Jun 1996 18:59:10 UTC+0100 Subject: New York Bookshops Dear SHAKSPEReans, Next July, I am travelling to New York for my very first time. Could you recommend any *Shakespearean* bookshop at all? Would it be feasible to find university accommodations for some five days or is this *beyond my wildest dreams* at this time of the year? On the other hand, if possible, is it advisable? Yours, J. Cora ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:40:25 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0473 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0473. Tuesday, 25 June 1996. From: Rick Jones Date: Monday, 24 Jun 1996 12:29:55 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0468 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment OK, once more and then I promise to shut up (on-list, at least). I *am* one of those theatre-talking theatre people to whom Ed Pechter refers with just a soupcon of condescension. If Kahn in fact said anything that even approximates "it's all in the text," then he is a pompous twit and/or a fool (my guess is the former). In analyzing literature, such New Critical perspectives are occasionally useful, always delimiting. I don't see an up-side to their application to theatre production. None of this denies that productions which are limited to touchy-feely pseudo-Stanislavskian "if I feel it, I can be it" nonsense are doomed from the start. But so are those which refuse to explore multiple interpretations because of some fanciful belief that subtext does not exist. If what Kahn is saying is merely that Shakespeare's plays provide, relatively speaking, more coherence between text and subtext than is true of most modern plays, then we are agreed... but we'd miss a fun argument. Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:59:19 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0474 Re: Should we discuss authorship: NOW Private Mail to Editor Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0474. Tuesday, 25 June 1996. From: Porter Jamison Date: Monday, 24 Jun 1996 11:35:35 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0467 Authorship discussion > Please give the authorship question some breathing room. . . . If you > yourself think the question of no value, please allow those who do to > follow up on their ideas. Hear, hear! Providing, of course, that authorship discussion can be confined to specific, well-marked threads and not meander into every single discussion, as it seems wont to do... > I know of one highly placed and frequently published academic who > will admit to a strong interest in Oxford's candidacy, but who > assures us that to mention it would be career suicide. . . . until > paid researchers who are open to the possibility begin to seek out > answers to the many anomalies, questions and confusions that have > given rise to the authorship issue, it will never go away. I, for one, would love to see the question debated rationally and ethically by established academicians, free of the rancor and near-religious zealotry which typifies most discussions on both sides of the issue. [Editor's Note: I am not about to let a should-we-discuss-authorship thread to begin. All future notes on this subject will be considered private mail to me and will not be distributed to the members. I will, of course, bring up the issue with the Advisory Board. There are plenty of places one who is interested can discuss and read about authorship: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare (The Newsgroup) and www.bcpil.lib.md.us/tross/ws/will.html (Dave Kathman's and Terry Ross's Authorship page) to name two. --HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 11:01:49 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0475 Re: Oregon Shakespeare Festival Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0475. Tuesday, 25 June 1996. From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Monday, 24 Jun 1996 12:25:57 PST Subject: Oregon Shakespeare Festival Thanks to Professor Blackburn for posting his "mini-review" of this year's productions at Ashland, Oregon. I will be going to Ashland in about a month for the 25th consecutive year, and will bring his review along. Ashland is going through a pivotal period. The long time business manager of the festival, Bill Patton, retired last fall. The long time artistic director had retired and been replaced a few years ago. He also announced his resignation, unexpectedly in the midst of some controversy, last year. The new artistic director created some additional controversy this winter with some personnel moves. I am very glad to see that, at least in Professor Blackburn's opinion, the quality remains high. Ashland, not too well known among the general public outside the west, is one of American theater's most valuable assets. I strongly second Professor Blackburn's encouragement of anyone who can visit Ashland to do so. I don't believe I've ever met anyone who traveled to the festival and regretted it. Best, Dan Lowenstein UCLA Law School ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 11:03:39 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0476 Re: Parody Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0476. Tuesday, 25 June 1996. From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 24 Jun 1996 16:49:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0470 Re: Parody I thought it was quite thrilling for Professor Thompson to mock what she takes to be the self-parodying effect of contemporary criticism by way of a parody of rightwing mockery of contemporary criticism. Right on! Or did she mean it? I have read both article in question and the article by Professor Orgel that is being argued with. The allusive quotation makes perfect sense to me; but maybe that's because I've fallen into that annoying academic habit of reading footnotes and following the chain of a scholarly debate. I would be much more interested in hearing Professor Orgel's response to what is in fact a serious if also somewhat stale objection to his position. Robert Appelbaum ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 11:12:41 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0477 What Emilia Knew Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0477. Tuesday, 25 June 1996. From: Jacob Goldberg Date: Monday, 24 Jun 1996 19:57:29 -0400 Subject: What did Emilia know and when did she know it? For a long time, I have felt that Emilia could not possibly have been unaware that the handkerchief which was dropped by Desdemona and picked up by her (Emilia) was the same handkerchief the loss of which was the occasion of Othello's wrath and Desdemona's distress. The excerpts below will explain why (I have capitalized "handkerchief" because in this context we are talking, not about a handkerchief, but about The Handkerchief). Why would Shakespeare have given us so much indication that Emilia knew very well, and all the time, that the handkerchief she "found by fortune" was the same one that occasioned Othello's abuse of Desdemona? Can he really have expected his audience to believe that the connection dawned on her only when Othello, after the murder, again referred to the "pledge of love which I first gave her", the Handkerchief? I guess that the answer to that question is that he did and they do. Are there any dissenting opinions? How Emilia came into possession of the Handkerchief. Act III, Scene 3, Desdemona, Emilia, and Othello present: Oth. I have a pain upon my forehead here. Des. ....Let me but bind it hard, within this hour It will be well. Oth. Your napkin is too little; (He puts the Handkerchief from him, and she drops it.) Let it alone. Come, I'll go in with you. (Exeunt Oth.and Des.) Emil. I am glad I have found this napkin; This was her first remembrance from the Moor; My wayward husband hath a hundred times Woo'd me to steal it; but she so loves the token, - For he conjured her she should ever keep it, - That she reserves it evermore about her To kiss and talk to. I'll have the work ta'en out And give it Iago Emilia seems greatly impressed by the great sentimental value placed on the "napkin" by both Othello and Desdemona. And she doesn't want to give it to Iago ("my wayward husband"); instead she intends to copy the work and give that to Iago. At that moment, in walks Iago, who, after a little repartee, snatches the Handkerchief from Emilia's hand, whereupon she cries "Poor lady, she'll run mad when she shall lack it". He tells her "Shut up and don't talk about it." or as Shakespeare would say, "Be not acknown on't". Othello Abuses Desdemona Act III, Scene 4, Othello, Desdemona, and Emilia present Oth. Lend me thy Handkerchief. Des. Here, my lord. Oth. That which I gave you. Des. I have it not about me. Oth. Not? Des. No, indeed, my lord. Oth. That is a fault. That Handkerchief Did an Egyptian to my mother give; ... if she lost it Or made a gift of it. my father's eye Should hold her loathed; ...she dying, gave it me And bid me, when my fate would have me wive, To give it her. I did so; and take heed on `t; ... To lose it or give't away were such perdition As nothing else could match. Des. It is not lost, but what an if it were? Oth. How! Des. I say it is not lost. Oth. Fetch't, let me see't. Des. Why, so I can, sir, but I will not now, ... Pray you, let Cassio be received again. Oth. Fetch me the Handkerchief; my mind misgives. Des. Come, come; You'll never meet a more sufficient man. Oth. The Handkerchief! Des. A man that all his time ...... Oth. The Handkerchief! Des. In sooth, you are to blame. Oth. Away! [exit] Emilia has been present all this time, present but not voting. She has said not a word to save her mistress in this most unpleasant and threatening confrontation. She knew the importance of the Handkerchief when she picked it up; she knows what happened to it, and she has heard Othello describe the consequences of losing it or giving it away. Finally, when Desdemona says to her, "Sure there's some wonder in this Handkerchief; I am most unhappy in the loss of it", she breaks her silence and consoles her mistrtess thus: Emil. `Tis not a year or two shows us a man; They are all but stomachs, and we all but food; They eat us hungerly, and when they are full, They belch us. Not a word about the Handkerchief, although Othello has reached a crescendo drumbeat with his The Handkerchief, The Handkerchief. Then in Act IV, Scene 2, she has a private interview with Othello. who is trying to ferret out some confirmation of Desdemona's infidelity. She still does not connect the handkerchief she found, (the napkin), with the Handkerchief that Othello is in such a rage about and the loss of which so bitterly distresses Desdemona. But after Othello murders Desdemona, Emilia suddenly has complete recall and says to Othello: Emil. O thou dull Moor! that Handkerchief thou speak'st of I found by fortune, and did give my husband; Come, come, Emilia, you didn't find it "by fortune"; you picked it up when you saw Desdemona drop it. And you kept it until your "wayward husband" took it from you. And you never mentioned this to Desdemona, even when she was being abused because of its "loss" I try to imagine what Desdemona said to Emilia, when they met in Heaven, and what Emilia replied. Might it have been Des. I told you, Emilia, how unhappy I was over the loss of the Handkerchief and you were there when Othello went at me with The Handkerchief, The Handkerchief, over and over again and again. Why didn't you tell him, or me, where it was? Emil. I was dumb, Mistress, I was dumb. Jacob Goldberg ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 08:53:33 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0478 Re: What Emilia Knew Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0478. Wednesday, 26 June 1996. (1) From: David Evett ,R0870%TAONODE@VMCMS.CSUOHIO.EDU. Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 15:37 ET Subj: SHK 7.0477 What Emilia Knew (2) From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 13:51:12 PST Subj: Emilia (3) From: Linda Vecchi Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 16:37:57 -0230 (NDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0477 What Emilia Knew (4) From: Richard W Bovard Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 12:27:02 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0477 What Emilia Knew (5) From: Sydney Kasten Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 09:58:12 +0200 (IST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0477 What Emilia Knew (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett ,R0870%TAONODE@VMCMS.CSUOHIO.EDU. Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 15:37 ET Subject: SHK 7.0477 What Emilia Knew Jacob Goldberg's lively posting on Emilia's noteworthy failure, twice, to fess up to her knowledge of the whereabouts of Othello's handkerchief, ends by positing that her silence was, in the generalized modern sense, merely "dumb." But there are alternatives--not, so to speak, in the text, but in the sub- or infra- textual region where actors and other readers must go to look for unacknowledged motives. The most likely ground for her silence seems to me terror of and for her husband: he directly orders her to keep mum, and in the theater much might depend on his tone and gesture at that moment. To this we might add a subordinate's resentment of her superiors (has Iago's resentment of Othello provoked a corresponding feeling toward Desdemona in his wife?), and/or a malicious? naive? insensitive? curiosity about the outcome of this domestic contretemps, authorized by her failure to understand the depth of either Iago's villainy or Othello's rage. Speculatively, Dave Evett (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 13:51:12 PST Subject: Emilia I have always assumed that, as Jacob Goldberg argues, Emilia knows that the handkerchief she has stolen and given to Iago is the one that Othello is upset about. This does not mean, however, that Emilia is complicit in Iago's plot against Othello. In the speech that Goldberg quotes from III, 3, she makes it clear that she realizes Desdemona "so loves the token" and Othello "conjured her she should ever keep it." Naturally, then, she will not be surprised that the loss of the handkerchief occasions a domestic row. Even if the row in the next scene seems more serious than she might have anticipated, she has no reason to anticipate the tragic consequence. And for her to disclose what she knows about the handkerchief would certainly have negative consequences for her and for her husband. Why would Emilia, who is hardly a selfless person, do that? None of this suggests that Emilia knows WHY Iago wanted the handkerchief or what he was planning to do with it. When, after the murder, she becomes aware for the first time of the significance of the handkerchief, she discloses the information that is relevant to Othello and the others. But she does not gratuitously incriminate herself. Thus, as Goldberg quotes, she says she found it "by fortune." On one small point I find Goldberg's reading surprising. When Desdemona says in III, 3, "I'll have the work ta'en out/And give it Iago," Goldberg reads "it" to refer to "the work," not the handkerchief. Thus, Goldberg says, Emilia does NOT intend to give the handkerchief to Iago, but rather to give him a copy. I had never understood the line that way. I thought she meant to take the identifying marks out of the handkerchief, so that it could not be identified as Desdemona's and therefore she (Emilia) could not be charged with its theft. (Remember how Oliver Twist is put to work taking the identifying marks out of the handkerchiefs stolen by Fagin's boys?) Best, Dan Lowenstein (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Vecchi Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 16:37:57 -0230 (NDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0477 What Emilia Knew Jacob Goldberg's imagined answer by a sanctified?? Emilia, has (matters of intentionality aside) fallen upon the reason for his confusion--Emilia is dumb, ie, silent over the matter of "the napkin." Emilia's silence may not be so inexplicable in the context of wife-husband, servant-master/mistress relations in Shakespeare's time. As a servant in Othello's household, it would not be Emilia's place to speak up (even in defence of her mistress). After all, when she found the handkerchief, she did not return it. She "borrowed" it (hoping to satisfy her obedience to her husband) keeping it over-night and copying the fine work. In strict fact, Emilia stole from her mistress. Having witnessed the violent rage of her master toward his wife, to whom Emilia believed he owed every devotion and deep respect, how might he act toward herself? She being a mere servant, and a woman whose virtue was not universally acknowledged by the household (remember Iago's doubts about Emilia's "honesty) might be in danger of her life were she to admit her role in the handkerchief's absence. Then we have Emilia's duty to her husband. Iago just finished instructing her to look out for an opportunity to take the napkin. A woman MUST obey her husband, especially a husband as suspicious as Iago has proven himself to be. Emilia had hoped to serve both he duties to Iago and Desdemona, but when Iago found her with the desired object so suddently, she had no recourse but to offer up her "gift" of obedience to him. Perhaps I'm over justifying Emilia's actions; yet her social standing and circumstances left her little room to correct matters herself. For both Desdemona and Emilia, their silences are as telling as what they speak. Linda Vecchi Memorial University of Newfoundland (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard W Bovard Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 12:27:02 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0477 What Emilia Knew Emilia knows whose handkerchief she has from the moment she has it. What she does not know is her husband and, thus, the possible consequences of her behavior. One of the delights and terrors of the last scene is to watch Emilia learn about her husband and her own responsibility: from "My husband?" to "I know thou didst not [say Desdemona was false]; thou'rt not such a villain" to "'Tis proper I obey him; but not now." Of course, she tends to blame Othello ("thou dull Moor") and avoid her own guilt. But I have seen an actress deliver the "alas, I found it, / And I did give't my husband" lines with an awareness of guilt. And all to please that husband? "I nothing but to please his fantasy" (3.3). A discussion of gender roles follows, perhaps? (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sydney Kasten Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 09:58:12 +0200 (IST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0477 What Emilia Knew To what extent were Elizabethan wives expected to honour the marriage vows of honour and obedience? How seriously did Elizabethans take their vows in general? Could Emilia have said anything without subverting the primary loyalty to her husband implied by the wedded state? Has Jacob Goldberg picked up the clue of an unnoticed human issue hidden in the text, a more insidious form of wife-abuse, a subtle counterpoint of mind-control played against the main theme of jealous rage: Desdemona's insistent but disobedient appeal to her husbands's better nature played against Emilia's resigned but obedient acknowledgment that her own husband had none. Is it possible that the Elizabethan ear was better tuned to pick up such subtleties than today's? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:06:25 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0479 Re: Shaw on *Much Ado* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0479. Wednesday, 26 June 1996. (1) From: Leo Daugherty ,leo@oz.net. Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 13:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: Shaw quote on MUCH ADO (2) From: Norman J. Myers Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 12:40:28 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0472 Qs: Shaw on _Much Ado_ (3) From: C. David Frankel Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 11:09:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0472 Qs: Shaw on _Much Ado_ (4) From: Stephen Buhler Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 11:15:36 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0472 Qs: Shaw on _Much Ado_ (5) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 20:09:39 -0700 Subj: Re: Shaw on _Much Ado_ (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leo Daugherty ,leo@oz.net. Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 13:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Shaw quote on MUCH ADO I think the easiest way to find the quote is to get the book SHAW ON SHAKESPEARE. Most of GBS's juicy anti-Will stuff is in there, including "He was not for a day, but for an afternoon." I'm on sabbatical now, and my copy of this book is in my office in another town, so I can't check it for you and give ed.'s name, p. numbers, etc., but it's in paperback and should be easy to find. Leo Daugherty (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman J. Myers Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 12:40:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0472 Qs: Shaw on _Much Ado_ In "The Dark Lady of the Sonnets", when Shakespeare is ridiculing the way the common folk go for the most obvious of his plays, at the expense of his richer and subtler ones, specifically "All's Well," Shaw has him say something to the effect that his two most popular comedies are "'As You Like It', meaning not as *I* like it, and 'Much Ado About Nothing,' as it truly is." Norman Myers Bowling Green State University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 11:09:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0472 Qs: Shaw on _Much Ado_ In "Dark Lady of the Sonnets," Shaw has Shakespeare say something like the following: Two plays that I wrote for the audience, not for myself: As you like it, that is, not as I like it, and Much Ado About Nothing, which it truly is. C. David Frankel frankel@arts.usf.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Buhler Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 11:15:36 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0472 Qs: Shaw on _Much Ado_ Al Cacicedo's student may have been referring to Shaw's Preface to *The Dark Lady of the Sonnets* (1910). In the last section, "Shakespear and the British Public," Shaw makes much of two of Shakespeare's titles: When Shakespear was forced to write popular plays to save his theatre from ruin, he did it mutinously, calling the plays As *You* Like It, and Much Ado About Nothing. All the same, he did it so well that to this day these two genial vulgarities are the main Shakespearean stock-in-trade of our theatres. I'd be interested to see if Shaw offered a variation on this--or simply made the same point again--elsewhere. Best, Stephen M. Buhler (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 20:09:39 -0700 Subject: Re: Shaw on _Much Ado_ Dear SHAKSPERians, Al Caciedo writes: >A student last semester told me that somewhere or other G. B. Shaw says that >all one needs to know about _Much Ado_ is the title. I've been looking for the >source ever since, in vain. Does anyone know where Shaw said so infamous a >thing? The closest I've been able to get is the following passage from a 1947 essay in which Shaw speculated that if Shakespeare had been asked to choose one of his plays for the Oxford World's Classics series it would have been HAMLET: ". . . As a playwright I must not pass over my predecessor Shakespear. If he could be consulted as to the inclusion of one of his plays in the present series he would probably choose his Hamlet, because in writing it he definitely threw over his breadwinning trade of producing potboilers which he frankly called As You Like It, Much Ado About Nothing, and What You Will" (quoted from SHAW ON SHAKESPEARE, Edwin Wilson, ed. [New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1961], page 79). There are a number of other references in the same book, but none which come as close to what your are looking for. Al, are you SURE it's Shaw? There have been lots of pithy dismissals of Shakespeare-- perhaps a look through those ROTTEN REVIEWS collections might aid you? Do let us know if and when you find the source! Faithfully, Bradley Berens Dept. of English U.C. Berkeley P.S. If not Shaw, then perhaps Pepys? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:08:07 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0480 Re: Shakespeare/Joyce Quote Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0480. Wednesday, 26 June 1996. (1) From: Michael Saenger Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 12:25:11 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Q: Shakespeare/Joyce Quote (2) From: Greg McNamara Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 12:10:26 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0471 Q: Shakespeare/Joyce Quote (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 12:25:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Q: Shakespeare/Joyce Quote Dear Leo, Well, I would be happy to be corrected, but I believe the quote you are remembering is "Shakespeare is the happy huntingground of all minds that have lost their balance" (_Ulysses_, Episode 10, section 15, 245:13-14). Joyce was not only precisely right, he was also self-depricating, since he spent the previous chapter showing that his interest in Shakespeare was profound, insightful and comprehensive. Oh, and Leo- I'm looking for the style sheet. Michael Saenger (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Greg McNamara Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 12:10:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0471 Q: Shakespeare/Joyce Quote For Professor Leo Daugherty: Near the end chapter 10 of _Ulysses_ (I don't have my H.W. Gabler edition handy or I would give the line numbers), Haines offers a half-hearted apology to half-hearted Mulligan for missing Stephen's discussion of _Hamlet_ (he was in Gill's buying a copy of Hyde's _Lovesongs of Connacht_). It goes like this: ...O, but you missed Dedalus on Hamlet Haines opened his newbought book. -- I'm sorry, he said. Shakespeare is the happy huntingground of all minds that have lost their balance. The onelegged sailor growled at the area of 14 Nelson street: -- England expects... Buck Mulligan's primrose waistcoat shook gaily to his laughter. -- You should see him, he said, when his body loses its balance. Wandering Aengus I call him. -- I am sure he has an idee fixe, Haines said, pinching his chin thoughtfully with thumb and forefinger. Now I am speculating what it would be likely to be. Such persons always have. ____________________________________________________________________ I hope you find this information helpful. Actually, in Stephen's discussion of _Hamlet_ in the previous chapter there are several references to the sonnets which you may find interesting, if not directly relevant to your query. Greg McNamara English, West Virginia University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:47:47 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0481 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0481. Wednesday, 26 June 1996. (1) From: Tom Clayton Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 12:50:35 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0473 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment (2) From: Stacy Keach Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 03:27:15 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0473 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996 12:50:35 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0473 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment A know-it-all theatrical proclamation isn't exactly the key to all the mythologies, either. Tom Clayton (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stacy Keach Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 03:27:15 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0473 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment I find the recent furor over Michael Kahn's "it's all in the text" comment inspiring at best, and misunderstood at worst. The question "what is Shakespeare really trying to say here?", which emerges with every artistic practitioner of any theatrical production- as they try to figure out how that production will look, sound, and feel, whether they be actor, designer, or director- will undoubtedly be answered in at least as many ways as each member of the ensemble may choose to determine, even though they will ultimately defer to the director's interpretation if they want to stay on the team. This is not to say that a good director is good because he doesn't allow the creative people around him to express themselves. Quite the contrary. A good director is one who inspires everyone involved with any given production to express their unique interpretation and to bring the full measure of their talent to whatever their task may be. And part of that task is in trying to answer the question: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? Whatever the answer to this question may be, it is not, in my opinion, "This particular passage does not mean what it says it means...it really means something else." Sub-text??? Confusion? I feel that clarity is the key to success in performing Shakespeare, as it is in performing Chekhov, Beethoven's Fifth, or trying to hit a golf ball. The passionate permutations of feelings we are made to feel by an exhilarating experience begin with a clear vision of the heights and depths of a whole range of emotions, a whole gallery of pictures, a multitude of memories, hopes, dreams, evoking laughter and tears. This is what Shakespeare provides for us when we read or see his plays. And what he really means, I feel, is not a matter for sub-textual analysis, it is strictly a matter of interpretation. And I can assure you that Michael Kahn is one director who inspires each person on his creative team to find more passionate, more imaginative, and more personal interpretations from moment to moment of the creative process. And the source of that inspiration is the Bard himself. It's all in the text, but I guess that could mean a lot of different things. Stacy Keach ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:54:18 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0482 Authorship: Correction and Clarification Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0482. Wednesday, 26 June 1996. (1) From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, June 26, 1996 Subj: Authorship Web Page (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 09:42:27 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0474 Re: Should we discuss authorship (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, June 26, 1996 Subject: Authorship Web Page I gave the wrong URL for the Shakespeare Authorship Web Page yesterday. The correct address is http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~tross/ws/will.html Apologies, Hardy (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 09:42:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0474 Re: Should we discuss authorship In my plea to academics in positions of authority to allow discussion of the authorship question, I had no intention of requesting such discussion on SHAKSPER. I am sorry if my request has been misunderstood. Hardy has set rules around this and it is his right to do so. It was simply a general request for tolerance of the issue in the classroom, at conferences, and most important, as topics for papers and theses. I had no intention of starting a discussion. Thanks for your understanding. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 10:14:37 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0483 Re: Shakespeare's Hebrew Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0483. Wednesday, 26 June 1996. From: Charles Boyle Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 07:30:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare's Hebrew I too was sad to see Florence Amit go. Some of us think Shakespeare may have been a linguistic genius. There is evidence for it. In fact, there is a coherent theory of the author that suggests he knew not only French and Italian but Latin and Greek as well (Honest Ben Jonson can be read both ways on this). And this Shakespeare, with his profound interest in the secret power of language, sacred ritual and Kabbalah (see Francis Yates, Noel Cobb, Jean Paris, among many others), might easily have wished to understand the Old Testament in it's original language. And loving puns, one can even imagine this Shakespeare punning between the tongues. Then there is another theory of the author that simply doesn't want to hear it, a theory that makes him dumb, and dumber. Proponents of this theory sometimes express concern that they sound "superior". Not to worry. How else could they sound? Anyway, too bad for Florence. I guess she had to go. Charles Boyle ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 11:52:01 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0484 Re: What Emilia Knew Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0484. Thursday, 27 June 1996. (1) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 10:13:35 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0478 Re: What Emilia Knew (2) From: G.L.Horton Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 12:00:25 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0478 Re: What Emilia Knew (3) From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 18:24 ET Subj: SHK 7.0478 Re: What Emilia Knew (4) From: Jacob Goldberg Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 22:07:37 -0400 Subj: What Emilia Knew (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 10:13:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0478 Re: What Emilia Knew The ambiguities surrounding Emilia's behavior are among the many things that lead me to think that the plays as we have them from the FF are the result of at least one, perhaps several revisions over possibly a fairly long period of time. Emilia may have been far more culpable in an earlier version; as the author, mellowed with experience, turned what was originally a far more bloodthirsty and politically topical plot into a more tragic and general commentary on the evils of envy and jealousy. The strong similarity of the plot of Othello to the potent continental rumor that Philip II strangled his young wife Elizabeth Valois out of jealousy for her relationship with his son, Don Carlos, to whom she had been engaged before Philip decided he wanted her for himself, makes an interesting argument for an anti-Spanish propaganda origin for the first version, sometime in the early 80's. An important figure in this scenario was the Princess of Eboli, Philips quondam mistress, whom he eventually had to shut up, literally, by confining her to her bedroom for the last decade of her life. The princess was supposed to have aroused Philip's paranoid jealousy (a trait he was famous for) by a similar ruse involving a handkerchief, which led to the young queen's death at the hands of her husband. Although modern historians go to lengths to debunk this rumor, claiming that there is plenty of evidence that Don Carlos was a cretin, so no one could have taken seriously the possibility that Elizabeth desired him, even a paranoid like Philip, the point isn't whether or not the rumor was true or not, but that it was popular, certainly popular enough that audiences of the 80's would realize immediately who was being portrayed as the Moor. (To the English, all Spaniards were "Moors", due to their long occupation of southern Spain.) Though no one could have cared whether it was historically true or not, this version of the death of the Spanish queen was still compelling enough in the nineteenth century that Verdi used it for his still popular opera Don Carlo. Stephanie Hughes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: G.L.Horton Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 12:00:25 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0478 Re: What Emilia Knew >On one small point I find Goldberg's reading surprising. When Desdemona says >in III, 3, "I'll have the work ta'en out/And give it Iago," Goldberg reads "it" >to refer to "the work," not the handkerchief. Thus, Goldberg says, Emilia does >NOT intend to give the handkerchief to Iago, but rather to give him a copy. I >had never understood the line that way. My grandmother used a sharp tool and a kind of wax-based washable ink to transfer a design from an embroidered handkerchief or towel to the unadorned ones she planned to make to match. She called this "pricking out" or "taking out" the design. By copying the design -- or rather, having it done by a professional-- if she tried to do it herself she might be discovered at the task--Emilia hopes to placate both masters: Desdemona can keep her token and Emilia can give it away. G.L.Horton Newton, MA, USA ghorton@tiac.net www.tiac.net/users/ghorton (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 18:24 ET Subject: SHK 7.0478 Re: What Emilia Knew Here's a question provoked by the Emilia postings of the last couple of days: do we here E's reiterated "My husband" (I leave off the final punctuation intentionally) as signalling astonished discovery, agonized recognition of things suspected but not admitted, or a movement from one to the other? Reports of relevant stage experience welcome. Dave Evett (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacob Goldberg Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 22:07:37 -0400 Subject: What Emilia Knew Interestingly enough, in my more or less negative view of Emilia, I had never considered, as Dan Lowenstein and Linda Vecchi do, that she had stolen the handkerchief. No, she picked it up when Desdemona dropped it, and pretty obviously intended to return it - after she made a copy of it for Iago. As to whether Emilia wanted only to copy the handkerchief or "to take the identifying marks out", as Dan Lowenstein understands the line "I'll have the work ta'en out/And give it to Iago", I can hardly think that this is what Shakespeare wanted the hearer to think. Compare Emilia's line to what Cassio says to Bianca, in 3:4: (handing her Desdemona's handkerchief) Sweet Bianca/Take me this work out ......... I like the work well; ere it be demanded,- As like enough it will,- I'd have it copied; Take it and do it;........ It hardly seems likely that Shakespeare wanted Emilia to think of herself as a thief and, worse still, wanted to cover up or destroy the evidence of the theft. As she dies, she cries "So come my soul to bliss, as I speak true". No, Emilia wanted to copy that handkerchief, and when that was impossible, tried to banish from her mind the consequence, and the potential consequence, of what she had done. Not that she should have anticipated the murder of Desdemona, but it would not have required a great deal of imagination to visualize this marriage being destroyed, perhaps violently, because of that handkerchief. Is it possible that Shakespeare erred in building up Emilia's character? What purpose in the play is served by having her present in 3:4? She takes no part in the dialogue between Othello and Desdemona, and when she talks to Desdemona alone, she seems unaware that the subject of that dialogue was the handkerchief - that same handkerchief of which she should be acutely aware. Dan Lowenstein thinks that Emilia becomes aware of the significance of the handkerchief for the first time, after the murder. I have a problem with that. In 3/3, she acknowledges the great sentimental value it has to Desdemona, and in 3/4, Shakespeare makes her sit through the "mad scene" in which she can hardly avoid becoming aware of the great significance of that handkerchief to Othello. Jacob Goldberg ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:23:23 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0485 Qs: SHOE; WS Reading Group; Chaos Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0485. Thursday, 27 June 1996. (1) From: Ann-Marie Roy Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 13:02:55 -0400 Subj: Taming of the SHOE (2) From: Jung Jimmy Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 3:28pm Subj: The Washington Shakespeare Reading Group (3) From: Laura Cerrato Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 11:11:13 ARG3 Subj: Chaos and Order (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ann-Marie Roy Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 13:02:55 -0400 Subject: Taming of the SHOE My mother is a high school English teacher, and she is looking for a copy of a skit that ran on Sesame Street titled Taming of the Shoe. Does anyone know where I could get a copy? Ann-Marie Roy (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jung Jimmy Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 3:28pm Subject: The Washington Shakespeare Reading Group Does the Washington Shakespeare Reading Group exist anymore, and where? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Cerrato Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 11:11:13 ARG3 Subject: Chaos and Order Could anybody recommend recent bibliography on the problem of CHAOS AND ORDER in Shakespeare's drama? Thank you. Laura Cerrato postmast@liting.filo.uba.ar ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:27:42 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0486 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment; Shakespeare/Joyce Quote Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0486. Thursday, 27 June 1996. (1) From: James Schaefer Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 13:01:06 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0473 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment (2) From: Charles Ross Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 22:03:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0480 Re: Shakespeare/Joyce Quote (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 13:01:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0473 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment To Rick Jones: At 48 I did not think that I was still too young for _anything_, but I guess I'm supposed to be to young to have been trained in and still find value in the techniques of New Criticism. (But then my advisor was a old [and wise] man). Not all New Critics were either pompous twits or fools, nor were their insights incompatible with today's multiple layers of understanding. In R.P. Blackmur's 1942 essay, "Language as Gesture," he defines the titular phrase as "the outward and dramatic play of inward and imaged meaning" -- about as vague and touchy-feeling as anything in Acting 100 -- and continues that it is "that play of meaningfulness among words which cannot be defined in the formulas in the dictionary, but which is defined in their use together." When two (or more?) such meanings clash, the conflict "creates meaning ... by feeling the pang, the inner bite, of things forced together." In such conflict of meanings, "I cannot help thinking somewhere between the two...." Lots of room here for multiple insights, multiple meanings, multiple backgrounds brought to bear on performance -- as long as these understandings have some basis in the text provided to us. Jim Schaefer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Ross Date: Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996 22:03:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0480 Re: Shakespeare/Joyce Quote Thank you for the lovely Joyce quote "Shakespeare is the happy hunting ground of all minds that have lost their balance." The quote is doubtless the source of the mad scholar Charles Kinbote's inability to find the phrase "pale fire" in his Zemblan copy of *Timon of Athens* or to recall it from *Hamlet*, as Nabokov taught *Ulysses* in the years just before composing his great novel *Pale Fire* (1962). I'll have more to say on this at the Shakespeare and Popular Culture conference at Temple Univ. in November. Query: I've never been to Ithaca. Is there at Cornell an avenue of trees mentioned in Shakespeare's plays? There is one in *Pale Fire* and I seem to recall someone telling me it exists in fact. Charlie Ross ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:29:52 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0487 Free "As You Like It" at the Folger Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0487. Thursday, 27 June 1996. From: Margo McGuirr Date: Thursday, 27 Jun 1996 10:54:14 -0400 Subject: Free "As You Like It" at the Folger The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express will perform As You Like It, directed by Ralph Alan Cohen, at the Folger's Elizabethan Theater on Monday, July 1 at 6:30pm. The performance is in conjunction with the Folger's High-School Teaching Institute but is open to any Folger reader or teacher who would like to attend. Any reader or teacher who wishes to be placed on the guest list should contact Margo McGirr at SShakespea@aol.com for reservations.========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:32:59 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0488 *SNL* Spring 1996, Shakespeare Summer Festivals Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0488. Friday, 28 June 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, June 28, 1996 Subject: *SNL* Spring 1996, Shakespeare Summer Festivals Dear SHAKSPEReans, I am posting the 1996 Shakespeare Summer Festivals list that I compile for *The Shakespeare Newsletter*. This list will appear shortly in the Spring 1996 issue. Although it is too late now for further inclusions, if you are associated with a festival or attend a festival I have not listed, please send me that festival's address so that I can include it in next year's list. --Hardy ****************************************************************************** Shakespeare Summer Festivals 1996 Compiled by Hardy M. Cook Bowie State University ACTORS' THEATRE, 1000 City Park, Columbus, OH 43206. (614) 444- 6888. 15th Season. Patricia B. Ellson, Artistic Director. June 12-Aug. 31. Rom. (Phil Kilbourne) June 12-29; My Fair Lady July 10-Aug. 3; Tit. (Jim Harbour) Aug. 15-31. ALABAMA SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, 1 Festival Drive, Montgomery, AL 36117-4605. (334) 271-5300. 25th Season. Kent Thompson, Artistic Director. Feb. 27-July 21. In repertory Rom. March 5-July 20; WT March 26-July 21; MWW May 28-July 19. Also The Ladies of the Camellias, To Kill a Mockinbird, Ain't Got Long to Stay Here, Lizard, and School for Scandal. AMERICAN PLAYERS THEATRE, P.O. Box 819, Spring Green, WI 53588. (608) 588-2361. 17th Season. June 13-Oct. 6. David Frank, Artistic Director. In repertory: The Misanthrope (opens June 21); The Country Wife (opens June 29); MWW (opens June 29); MM (opens Aug. 10); Rom. (opens Sept. 14). BARD ON THE BEACH, 510 W. Hastings St., Vancouver, BC V6B 1L8. (604) 739-0559. 7th Season. Christopher Gaze, Artistic Director. June 11-Sept. 22. Ado (Douglas Campbell); MV (Douglas Campbell). Located under the "big red tent" in Vanier Park with a stunning backdrop of mountain, city, and sky. CALIFORNIA SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, 2531 Ninth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710. (510) 548-3422. 23rd Season. Joe Vincent, Artistic Director. June 15-Oct. 6. MWW (Robert Kelley) June 15-July 28; H5 (James Bundy) July 6-Aug. 3; TN (Joe Vincent) Aug. 10-Sept 7; MM (Michael Addison) Sept. 14-Oct. 6. Performances outdoors at Bruns Memorial Amphitheatre, Orinda. COLORADO SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, University of Colorado - Boulder, P.O. Box 460, Boulder, CO 80309-0460. (303) 492-0554. 39th Season. Richard M. Devin, Producing Artistic Director. June 28-Aug. 18. In repertory: MND (Joel Fink); MV (Susan Gregg); Oth. (Ken Frankel); Moliere's The Miser (John Dennis). GEORGIA SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, 4484 Peachtree Rd., N.E., Atlanta, GA 30319. (404) 264-0020. 11th Season. Richard Garner, Producing Director. June 14-Aug. 11. In repertory: a world premiere of a musical adaptation of TN; Tro.; Moliere's The Bourgeois Gentleman; Ammerman's Booth, Brother Booth. Performances in 400-seat air-cooled tent theatre. Pre-show activities and picnic grounds. HOUSTON SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, University of Houston School of Theatre, Houston, TX 77204-5071. (713) 743-3003. 22th Season. Sidney Berger, Producing Director. Aug. 2-Aug. 17. Mac. (Sidney Berger); WT (Beth Stanford). Outdoors in Miller Outdoor Theatre, Hermann Park. HUDSON VALLEY SHAKSPEARE FESTIVAL, 137 Main Street, Cold Spring, NY 10516. (914) 265-7858 (office), (914) 265-9575 (box office). 10th Season. Terrence O'Brien, Artistic Director; Susan Landstreet, Managing Director. June 26-Aug. 18. MND (June 26- Aug. 4); LLL (July 25-Aug. 18). All performances take place in a tent-theater on the grounds of Boscobel Restoration, a Hudson River estate in Garrison, New York, approximately 50 miles north of New York City. IDAHO SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, P.O. Box 9365, Boise, ID 83707. (208) 336-9221. 20th Season. Charles Fee, Artistic Director. June 27- Sept. 21. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged) by Jess Borgeson, Adam Long, and Daniel Singer (Charles Fee) June 27-Aug. 30; MWW (Sari Ketter) June 27-Aug. 31; Tmp. (Bart Sher) July 18-Sept. 1; TN (Charles Fee) Aug. 1-Sept. 21. KENTUCKY SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, 1114 South Third St., Louisville, KY 40203. (502) 583-8738. Curt L. Tofteland, Producing Director. June 6-July 21. TGV (Curt L. Tofteland) opens June 6; H5 (Drew Fracher) opens July 5; Pantalone Gets His! (Brandi J. Smith) opens June 13. MARIN SHAKSPEARE COMPANY, P.O. Box 4053, San Rafael, CA 94913. (415) 499-1108. 7th Season. Robert S. Currier, Artistic Director. July 20-Sept. 22. MND (Robert S. Currier) July 20- Agu. 11; Peter Pan (Robert S. Currier) Aug. 24-Sept. 22. Performances in the sylvan Forest Meadows Amphitheatre in San Rafael. MONTANA SHAKESPEARE IN THE PARKS, Department of Media and Theatre, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717-0400. (406) 994-3901/5885. 24th Season. Joel Jahnke, Artistic Director. June 21-Sept. 10. JC and Shaw's You Never Can Tell; 78 performances in 56 communities, touring in parks throughout Montana, Cody, Lovell, & Sheridan WY, and Salmon, ID. Features 16 shows in Bozeman with evening shows outside under lights and Saturday matinees. NASHVILLE SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL: Shakespeare in the Park, 2814 12th Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37204. (615) 292-2273. 9th Season. Aug. 2-31. JC (David Alford). NEBRASKA SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, c/o Department of Fine and Performing Arts, Creighton University, 2500 California Plaza, Omaha, NE 68178. (402) 280-2391. 10th Season. Cindy Phaneuf, Artistic Director. June through early July. H5 (John Ahlin) and Shr. (Cindy Phaneuf) June 20-23, 27-30, July 4-7. NEW JERSEY SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, Drew University, 36 Madison Ave., Madison, NJ 07940 (201) 408-3278. 34th Season. Bonnie J. Monte, Artistic Director. TGV (Robert Duke, dir.; Adapted by John Guare and Mel Shapiro; Lyrics by John Guare; Music by Gait MacDermot) May 22-June 15; Our Town (Dylan Baker) June 19-July 6; R3 (Daniel Fish) July 10-27; WT (Scott Wentworth) July 31-Aug. 17; Anouih's Leocadia (Bonnie J. Monte) Aug. 21-Sept. 7. Annual Shakespeare Colloquium July 20-21. NORTH CAROLINA SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, P.O. Box 6066, High Point, NC 27262-6066. (910) 887-3001 (Ticket Office), (910) 841-2273 (Administrative Office). 20th Season. Louis Rackoff, Artistic Director. Thomas G. Gaffney, Managing Director. Aug. 17-Oct. 12. In repertory: TN, Wt, and Cyrano de Bergerac. 600 seat theatre. Outreach Tours. OLD GLOBE THEATRE, P.O. Box 2171, San Diego, CA 92112. (619) 239- 2255. Jack O'Brien, Artistic Director. June 30-Oct. 5. Shr. (James Dunn) June 30- Aug. 10; Mac. (TBA) Aug. 25-Oct. 5. OKLAHOMA SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL. P.O. Box 1074, Durant, OK 74702. (405) 924-0121 (extension 2217). 17th Season. Molly Risso, Artistic Director. June 28-July 28. Mac. (John Addison) July 19, 23, 27; MND Dinner Theatre (James Serpento) July 12, 13, 25, 28; The Sound of Music (Molly Risso) July 18, 21, 24, 26; Children's Theatre Workshop (Riley Risso) June 28-30; Teen Theatre Workshop (Ruby Quinn) July 5-7. Hosted by Southeastern Oklahoma State University. OKLAHOMA SHAKESPEARE IN THE PARK, P.O. Box 1171, Edmond, OK, 73083. (405) 340-1222. 12th Season. Kathryn O'Meara, Artistic Director. May 16-Sept. 1. LLL (J. Shane McClure) May 16-June 9; 1H4 (Kathryn O'Meara) June 13-July 7; Scapin (Robert E. McGill) July 11-Aug. 4; WT (Kathryn O'Meara) Aug. 8-Sept. 1. Performances 8 p.m. Thursday through Sunday in the O'Meara Amphitheatre, Hafer Park, 9th & Bryant in Edmond. OJAI SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, P.O. Box 575, Ojai, CA 93024. (805) 646-WILL. 14th Season. Paul Backer, Artistic Director. Aug. 2- Aug. 18. In repertory MWW (Potter) and Three One-Act Plays by Moliere (Kelejian). OREGON SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, P.O. Box 158, Ashland, OR 97520. (541) 482-4331. 61st Year. Libby Appel, Artistic Director. Feb. 16-Oct. 27. Angus Bowmer Theatre: WT (Fontaine Syer) Feb. 18- Oct. 27. The Elizabethan Theatre: Rom. (Rene Buch) June 4-Oct.6; Cor. (Tony Taccone) June 5-Oct. 4; LLL (Pat Patton) June 6-Oct. 5. Plus seven non-Shakespearean productions. Backstage tours, lectures, concerts, play readings, and more. Write or call for detailed brochure, or visti Web at http://www.mind.net/osf/. ORLANDO-UCF SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, 30 South Magnolia, Suite 250, Orlando, FL 32822. (407) 245-0985. 6th Season. Jim Helsinger, Artistic Director. March 29-May 5. In repertory JC (Russell Treyz) and TGV (Jim Helsinger). PENNSYLVANIA SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL AT ALLENTOWN COLLEGE, 2755 Station Ave., Center Valley, PA 18034. (610) 282-9455. Gerard J. Schubert, O.S.F.S., Producing Artistic Director. June 11-Aug. 3. AYL (Dennis Razze) June 11-June 29; Oth. (Jim Christy) July 9- Aug. 3; The School for Wives (Russell Treyz) July 2-July 28; Jack and the Beanstalk (Chuck Conwell) June 6-Aug.2). Pre-main stage outdoor Green Show, featuring Renaissance music, dance, and clowning (William T. George). SAN FRANCISCO, SAN JOSE, OAKLAND-EAST BAY SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, P.O. Box 590479, San Francisco, CA 94159-0479. (415) 666-2222. 14th Season. July-Oct. Free Shakespeare in the Park: LLL (Ed Hastings) in San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and San Ramon; Presentation Theatre: Ham. (David Dower) Sept.-Oct. in Sand Harbor (Lake Tahoe); Ado (Hector Correa); Err. (Albert Takazauckas) Jul.-Sept. SHAKESPEARE & COMPANY AT THE MOUNT, P.O. Box 865, Lenox, MA 01240. (413) 637-1199. 19th Season. Tina Packer, Artistic Director. May 24-Sept. 1. Mainstage Theatre: MWW July 26-Sept. 1. Other plays in repertory include MM, TGV, LLL, and more. Performances at the Mount, Edith Wharton's historic home in the beautiful Berkshires. SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL OF DALLAS, Sammons Center for the Arts, 3630 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75219. (214) 559-2778. 25th Season. Reynolds B. "Cliff" Redd, Executive Producer. June 18- July 28. In repertory: Oth. (Rene Moreno); MND (Raphael Parry). Performances in Samuell-Grand Park. Free. SHAKESPEARE THEATRE FREE FOR ALL, 301 East Capitol Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003. (202) 393-2700. 6th Season. June 9-23. Michael Kahn, Artistic Director. MM (Michael Kahn). At the Carter Barron Amphitheatre in Rock Creek Park and featuring Kelly McGillis as Isabella. Free workshops, tours, and discussions. SHAKESPEARE ON THE SASKATCHEWAN FESTIVAL, P.O. Box 1646, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7K 3R8. 1-306-6523-2300. Henry Woolf, Artistic Director. 12th Season. July 2-Aug. 18. In rotation: TN (opens July 5); Lr. (opens July 5); Offenbach's La Vie Pariesienne (opens July 7, produced by the Riverbank Music Company). SHAKESPEARE SANTA CRUZ, Performing Arts Complex, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064. (408) 459-4168. 15th Season Paul Whitworth, Artistic Director. July 18-Sept. 1. In repertory: TN (Tim Ocel) opens July 18; Per. (Christopher Grabowski) opens July 28; Moliere's Tartuffe (Anthony Powell) opens July 27. Located on the campus of the University of California at Santa Cruz, the festival overlooks the Pacific Ocean and Monterey Bay and boasts the most beautiful outdoor, redwood theater glen in the country. SHAKESPEARE UNDER THE STARS 1996, Hampshire Shakespeare Company, P.O. Box 825, Amherst, MA 01004. (413) 256-4120. 6th Season. Timothy Holcomb, Artistic Director. June 24-Aug. 1. Lr. (Brian Marsh) June 24-July 11; Shr. (Sarah Wilson) July 11-Aug. 1. Presenting uncut versions of the plays as they were published in the First Folio. SHENANDOAH SHAKESPEARE EXPRESS, P.O. Box 1485, Harrisonburg, VA 22801. (504) 434-3366. Ralph Alan Cohen and Jim Warren, Artistic Directors. 1996 Summer Season in repertory: AYL, H5, JC and Err. June 18-July 31, The Thomas Harrison Middle School, Harrisonburg, VA; fall tour in New England and Canada, Sept. through Nov. STERLING RENAISSANCE FESTIVAL, Farden Road, Sterling, NY 13156. 1-800-879-4446. 20th Season. June 29-Aug. 11. Gary Izzo, Artistic Director. Shr., The Deceived, One Comedia dell'arte show. STRATFORD FESTIVAL THEATRE, Box 520, Stratford, Ontario, Canada N5A 6V2. (519) 273-1600 or 1-800-567-1600. 44th Season. May 6- Nov. 3. Richard Monette, Artistic Director. Lr. (Richard Monette) May 6-Nov. 2; MV (Marti Maraden) May 13-Nov. 3; AYI (Richard Rose) June 16-Sept.14; plus eight other non- Shakespearean productions. Visit Internet site at http://www.ffa.ucalgary.ca/stratford/ THE THEATER AT MONMOUTH: The Shakespeare Theater Of Maine, P.O. Box 385, Monmouth, ME 04259-0385. (207) 933-9999. 27th Season. Richard C. Sewell, Jeremiah Kissel, and Michael O'Brien, Co- Artistic Director. July 5-Aug. 31. AYL (Michael O'Brien) July 5- Aug. 31; WT (Charles Weinstein) July 24-Aug. 30; and Charles Dickens' Hard Times (Jeremiah Kissel); Arms and the Man (Jeremiah Kissel); Once Upon a Wolf (Michael O'Brien). The Theater at Monmouth has been recognized by the state legislature as The Shakespeare Theater of Maine. Plays are performed in rotating repertory at Cumston Hall - a national historic landmark building erected in 1900. THEATREWORKS SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, Colorado Springs, CO 80933. (719) 593-3240. Murray Ross, Artistic Director. 14th Season. Aug. 6-Aug. 24. TGV. Live music, art, food. TULANE SUMMER SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118-5698. (504) 862-8000 (Extension 1752). 3rd Season. Paul Schierhorn, Artistic Director. June 14-Aug. 10. MWW (Nick Faust) June 14-July 7; Mac. (Aimee Michel) July 19-Aug. 10; Free "Swan Series" of concerts, lectures on Tuesdays. Sunday matinees preceded by brunch on verandah. UTAH SHAKESPEAREAN FESTIVAL, 351 W. Center St., Cedar City, UT 84720. (801) 586-7878. Fred C. Adams, Founder and Executive Director; Douglas N. Cook and Cameron Harvey, Producing Artistic Directors; R. Scott Phillips, Managing Director. June 20-Aug. 31. In repertory: 1H4 (Paul Barnes); Mac. (Robert Cohen); Err. (D. Scott Glasser); WT (James Edmondson); The Mikado (Roger Bean); The Three Musketeers (Michael Addison). VIRGINIA SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, College of William & Mary, P.O. Box 8795, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795. (804) 221-2660. 18th Season. Jerry H. Bledsoe, Executive Director. July 5-July 28. In repertory: H5 (J. H. Bledsoe) opens July 5; TN (James Luse) opens July 12. WASHINGTON SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, P.O. Box 1501, Olympia, WA 98507. (360) 943-9492. 11th Season. Aug. 6-Aug. 31. In repertory Ham., Ado, and Lion in Winter. WESTERLY SHAKSPEARE IN THE PARK, P.O. Box 191, Westerly, RI 02891. (401) 596-0810. 5th Season. Harland Meltzer, Artistic Director. July 18-Aug. 11. Rom. (John Clinton Eisner) July 18- Aug.4; JC (Michael Edwards) Aug. 7-Aug. 11. In Wilcox Park. WISCONSIN SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, Center for the Arts, U of W, Platteville, WI 53818-3099. (608) 342-1298. 20th Season. July 6- Aug. 10. Thomas P. Collins, Artistic Director. In repertory: TN opens July 6; Mac. opens July 10; Shr. opens July 12. "Talk- backs" (Tuesday evenings) and Backstage tours (Saturday mornings). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:41:37 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0489 Re: What Emilia Knew Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0489. Friday, 28 June 1996. (1) From: Thomas E. Ruddick Date: Thursday, 27 Jun 96 13:35:32 EST Subj: RE: SHK 7.0484 Re: What Emilia Knew (2) From: Tunis Romein Date: Thursday, 27 Jun 1996 14:40:50 -0400 Subj: Something Else Emilia Knew (3) From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Thursday, 27 Jun 1996 12:14:43 PST Subj: Emilia (4) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 28 Jun 1996 07:12:44 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0484 Re: What Emilia Knew (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas E. Ruddick Date: Thursday, 27 Jun 96 13:35:32 EST Subject: RE: SHK 7.0484 Re: What Emilia Knew Briefly: Emilia's character does not possess high ethics, if her declarations to Desdemona during the unpinning scene are any indications. Emilia would not use her husband so by this holy light--but she might do it in the dark (chuckle). Desdemona would not do such a thing for the world--but Emilia insists that the world's a great price for a small vice. These lines contrast Emilia's selfish motives to Desdemona's pure ones, and they establish Emilia as concerned only for herself. Her death line "as I speak true" reveals still a selfish motive--though she speaks truth primarily from horror at Iago's deceptions and from loyalty to her late lady, she still hopes that having spoken truth at the end will yield her a heavenly reward. Thomas E. Ruddick (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tunis Romein Date: Thursday, 27 Jun 1996 14:40:50 -0400 Subject: Something Else Emilia Knew Besides remaining silent about what had happened to Desdemona's handkerchief, Emilia seems to suppress another important fact: the identity of the person Othello suspects of being Desdemona's lover. After Othello calls Desdemona a whore (IV, ii), she, Emilia, and Iago speculate about Othello's abusive behavior. At one point, Emilia says, Why should he call her whore? Who keeps her company? What place? What time? What form? What likelihood? The Moor's abused by some most villainous knave, Some base notorious knave, some survey fellow. Her remark about the "villainous knave," evidently speculative, makes Iago nervous ("Speak within door. . . . You are a fool. Go to."). But she should not have had to speculate about the identity of Desdemona's putative lover. Othello has already told her that he suspects Cassio. This exchange occurs at the beginning of the same scene: Othello: You have seen nothing then? Emilia: Nor ever heard, nor ever did suspect. Othello: Yes, you have seen Cassio and she together. Emilia: But then I saw no harm,and then I heard Each syllable that breath made up between them. So Emilia knows about the handkerchief and about Othello's suspicion of Cassio. But when these facts surface at the end of the play, she seems shocked and surprised by both. When she hears that Othello suspected Cassio of being his wife's lover, she says, "She false with Cassio? Did you say with Cassio?" How do we explain Emilia's behavior? Does she consciously withhold this information out of some vicious antagonism toward Desdemona? Do we label her a passive-aggressive co-culprit? Do we blame Shakespeare for sloppy writing? Here's another question: Why, after the murder, does Emilia refer to Desdemona's marriage to Othello as a "bargain," albeit "her most filthy bargain?" Tunis Romein Charleston, SC USA romeint@awod.com (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Thursday, 27 Jun 1996 12:14:43 PST Subject: Emilia Horton's evidence from his own linguistic experience and Goldberg's textual arguments make a good case that Emilia intends to copy the handkerchief and give Desdemona back the original. Thanks to both of them for helping me see the scene and Emilia's character in a different light. I wonder, though, if there is any way for a director to communicate this understanding to a modern audience, which will not understand the words "ta'en out" to mean "copied." Emilia could try to conceal the handkerchief from Iago before he takes it, but my guess is that that would be more confusing than enlightening to an audience. Either way, I don't know if there is a difference of opinion between Goldberg and me over whether Emilia understands "the significance" of the handkerchief prior to the final scene. She presumably does understand its "significance" as a cause of a very bitter matrimonial brawl, which she presumably believes is based on an irrationally strong attachment on Othello's part to the gift he had made to Desdemona. I think it is entirely understandable and in character that Emilia would remain silent, given that understanding, for the reasons I gave in my original message and that someone else improved on yesterday. But she does not understand the "significance" of the handkerchief as part of a plot by her husband to deceive Othello into jealousy until the final scene, at which point she discloses the handkerchief's role in the plot but not her own culpability. Best, Dan Lowenstein (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 28 Jun 1996 07:12:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0484 Re: What Emilia Knew In my post of yesterday I neglected to point out the similarities between the culpable role of the Princess of Eboli in the strangling of Elizabeth Valois and the more ambiguous role of Emilia in the strangling of Desdemona. The aspersions cast on Emilia's fidelity by Iago may be a hint also that this is so, since the character of Emilia as portrayed by Shakespeare is that of a kindly woman, faithful both to husband and to mistress. The Princess of Eboli was Philip's (Othello's) mistress although she was married to another (Iago). Thanks to G. L. Horton for the memory of her grandmother. For me this clinches the meaning of "take out", which is that it refers to copying the design, not to erasing it. Just to touch once again on my point of yesterday; whenever we see a character onstage who seems to have no real business being there, we can't help but think, "rewrite?" As everyone knows who has rewritten earlier work, altering the nature of a character or the sequence of events in a finished work can cause a ripple of required changes throughout the whole work. By having Emilia merely borrow the handkerchief rather than steal it and perhaps suggest the ruse to Iago, the author has removed her from the villain list, but was either unable to resolve the issues raised by Goldberg (why does she appear so stupid about the handkerchief later) or ignored them since she was not important enough as a character. (Or some stage direction or explanatory exchange didn't survive the process of editing and publishing.) Though a masterful builder of plot and character, Shakespeare's plays frequently demonstrate such ambiguities, evidence to me of probable rewriting. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:46:11 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0490 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0490. Friday, 28 June 1996. From: Milla Riggio Date: Friday, 28 Jun 1996 08:28:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Michael Kahn's Comment Having set this little mini-storm off, I have stayed away from the Michael Kahn exchange, and even now I have only a couple of minor and incidental comments to make. Remember what Ed Pechter says; you have only my paraphrase, not Michael's words. But even that paraphrase comes nowhere close to Rick Jones' subsequent paraphrase of my paraphrase. Michael said nothing whatsoever that would fuel the New Critics' notion of Shakespeare. Telling an actor that, from the director's perspective, the line means what it says is nothing like saying "It's all in the text," without referent to outside sources, meanings, contexts, information, and so forth. Michael said nothing of that kind at all. But what has amused me, and I think kept me silent (with a resolve not to drop others' ideas into the lion's lair again) is the extent to which people who in their internet exchanges love to hold firm, clear, opinions - some of which at times seem rather silly to me, some of which seem intelligent, some of which I forget quickly - jumping to insult as a "pompous twit" a director of some repute who is reported to hold a strong opinion himself. Come on, guys, don't the opinionated love others who are the same? What pleasure does it give you to insult Michael Kahn indirectly for something he is merely reported to have said? Milla Riggio A FOOTNOTE TO MY RECENT NON-RESPONSE TO THE MICHAEL KAHN REPLIES: I do urge you all to pay particular attention to Stacy Keach's comments. Not only does he gloss EXACTLY what Michael meant (and wrote) in his Preface, but he has the experience to prove it, as he has been directed by Michael. And, by the way, I have heard Mark Lamos work in a very similar manner, to get actors back to the point of the language with the assumption that characters mean what they say and that the first interpretive choice is to find out what it is that they are saying. What director in the world would try to restrict interpretive choices? Neither of these, for sure, but both do begin with the idea that the characters say what they mean and mean what they say, and interpretation takes off from there. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:53:40 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0491 MERIDA FESTIVAL Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0491. Friday, 28 June 1996. From: Jesus Cora Date: Friday, 28 Jun 1996 14:58:49 UTC+0100 Subject: MERIDA FESTIVAL Dear listmembers, In case some of you have decided to spend your holidays in sunny Spain, this is a suggestion for you to enjoy our cultural heritage. The Merida Annual Theatre Festival is under way. The venue is impressive. A realRoman theatre which is part of Merida Roman past (formerly known as Emerita Au- gusta). Needless to say, this is an ideal place to offer Shakespeare's Roman Plays. Two of them are included in the program which I list below: JUNE 28, 29 COMPANIA NACIONAL DE DANZA Extractos de Kyr. Por Vos Muero. Mediterrania. Director: Nacho Duato. JULY 3 THROUGH 7 JULIO CESAR William Shakespeare Compania del C.A.T. Vestuario (Costumes): Franca Squarciapino. Director: Daniel Suarez. 10 THROUGH 14 ANTIGONA Sofocles (Sophocles) With Juan Luis Galiardo and Blanca Apilanez. Director: Francisco Suarez 16 & 17 PROMETHEUS BOUND (In English) Esquilo (Aesquilus) Attis Theatre Company Director: Theodoros Terzopoulos 19 & 20 BALLET NACIONAL DE CUBA Edipo Rey (Oedipus, King) *Opening in Europe* Don Quijote (Don Quixote) *Based on Mario Petipa's original choreography* Director: Alicia Alonso 25 Soplo Heroico Venue: Canal de Remo (on Guadiana River), the Arab wall (Muralla de la Alcazaba and the Roman Bridge). Director: Joan Font (Els Comediants). JULY-AUGUST 26 THROUGH 4 ANFITRION (Amphitruo) Plauto (Plautus) With Rafael Alvarez *El Brujo* Adapt. and director: J. L. Alonso de Santos. AUGUST 7 THROUGH 11 ANTONIO Y CLEOPATRA (Antony and Cleopatra) William Shakespeare With Magui Mira, Chema Muñoz. Director: Jose Carlos Plaza. Festival Office: PHONE: 34 (24) 33 03 12; FAX: 34 (24) 33 00 07 All the best for this summer. J. Cora fmjca@alcala.es Universidad de Alcala de Henares (Madrid, Spain)========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 07:39:38 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0492 Qs: Hubert & Arthur; Shakespeare and Marlowe Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0492. Monday, 1 July 1996. (1) From: Ed Friedlander Date: Friday, 28 Jun 1996 09:43:45 CST Subj: King John -- Hubert & Arthur (2) From: Jennifer Formichelli Date: Saturday, 29 Jun 1996 11:53:36 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Query: Shakespeare and Marlowe (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Friedlander Date: Friday, 28 Jun 1996 09:43:45 CST Subject: King John -- Hubert & Arthur I would be most grateful if someone on the list could answer this question, either to the list or by private E-mail to erf@alum.uhs.edu King John needs to kill his hostage Arthur, as Pandulph explains in the chilling speech in the third act. The exchange between King John & Hubert is explicit, though fast: "Death?" "A grave". "He shall not live." I have always been told that Hubert decides not to blind Arthur because he feels pity. In reflecting, it seems more likely to me that the whole business with the hot irons is a charade designed to force Arthur to make an escape attempt. If he is killed during the attempt, Hubert will have his deniability, just as actually happens. "I didn't know anything about it." He doesn't fool Faulconbridge, or apparently anybody else. If Arthur survives an escape attempt, the worst that can happen is that he'll say Hubert spared him. This seems disturbingly contemporary. Does Hubert spare Arthur from pity, or as part of a cynical plan to kill him? I understand that the historical Hubert de Bergh was a rather enlightened statesman. Thanks. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jennifer Formichelli Date: Saturday, 29 Jun 1996 11:53:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Query: Shakespeare and Marlowe Dear Shakespeare, A query: I thought we might get a conversation going around Shakespeare's relation to Marlowe. I noticed quite a few of you were Marlowe scholars as well as Shakespeare enthusiasts or scholars. What I am wondering especially is if anyone noticed not parallel passages but lines of Shakespeare that he adopted and revised--or just adopted (ie, the Dido speech that the player reads for Hamlet on Hamlet's request)--from Marlowe's plays. Eavesdropping yesterday on your conversation regarding Merchant of Venice, I was tempted to think of the Jew of Malta, especially when someone noted that Shylock doesn't seek blood until the law refuses to help him. Though Barabas is more evil and more of a caricature, this is very much his situation. There is too, for comparison, Measure for Measure (pound of flesh...a pound of gold). I also wanted to drop my cents into the fascinating conversation of Othello, thinking again about the value of the token---now taken for humour--in Twelfth Night, of the ring that Antonio gives to Portia, and that he gives back to her. And, in the comedy discussion, how about the comic scenes within the tragedies, like the Fool in Lear, the grave-digger in Hamlet, etc? One other thing: does anyone know why the 'h' in the Folio of Anthony and Cleopatra is now usually removed?--Jennifer Formichelli ( Sorry, I meant the ring that Portia gives to Antonio, and he gives back to her in her disguise) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 07:44:06 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0493 Re: Back to Shylock; Michael Kahn's Comment Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0493. Monday, 1 July 1996. (1) From: Rick Jones Date: Friday, 28 Jun 1996 11:15:03 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Back to Shylock (2) From: Thomas E. Ruddick Date: Friday, 28 Jun 96 14:55:21 EST Subj: RE: SHK 7.0490 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Friday, 28 Jun 1996 11:15:03 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Back to Shylock I said I wouldn't post again on the whole Michael Kahn business; I hope the following constitutes enough of a new spin to mean that I'm not breaking my word here. Since I seem to have created the diversion which steered us away from a potentially very interesting thread, perhaps it is my job to bring us back. Milla Riggio says that Michael Kahn did not in fact say what I said she said he said. (Whew!) Fine. At least that invalidates my conditional sentence, "If [he] in fact said...", which itself was, I grant, pompous and/or foolish (to coin a phrase). But I'd like to return to my original question, in context. The discussion was about Shylock in Act I: has he yet decided that he will kill Antonio if given the opportunity? What, in other words, does he mean by "feed fat the ancient grudge"? It was at this point that Milla Riggio cited Michael Kahn. Let us for the moment grant that in Shakespeare, characters "say what they mean and mean what they say" (I'm not sure this is always true, but it is certainly more true in Shakespeare than in modern drama). But how does this advance the argument or bring us to an even tentative answer? Someone (sorry, I've forgotten who) said something to the effect that Shylock's line means that the "merry bond" isn't so merry after all: that he's hoping to kill Antonio in revenge. There's some evidence for that, but I choose a different interpretation, which I think also has textual (and historio-cultural) support. I suggest that both interpretations have merit, and that one reason the play has survived for 400 years is precisely this multiplicity of possible, valent, readings. I infer that Milla Riggio sees a clear textual "answer," else why bring up the Kahn paraphrase? But she doesn't say what that answer is, and I just don't see a single "correct" response. Obviously I'm misreading, misinterpreting, or otherwise just not understanding her point. Would she (or someone!) help me out, here? Rick Jones (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas E. Ruddick Date: Friday, 28 Jun 96 14:55:21 EST Subject: RE: SHK 7.0490 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment Milla: I believe I now understand you to be saying that you have misrepresented Michael Kahn in your original post? If so, I direct my umbrage at your silly misrepresentation rather than at Mr. Kahn himself. Not to get too Freudian, I hope, but are you sure you didn't personally want to express such an idea, and did so under the guise of your (mis?) understanding of Kahn? So, what (if you care to share) are *your* beliefs? Also, just for the record, what did Kahn *really* say? Thomas E. Ruddick ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 07:49:19 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0494 Re: Libby Appel; Shakespeare Summer Festivals Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0494. Monday, 1 July 1996. (1) From: Rinda Frye Date: Friday, 28 Jun 96 14:36:36 EDT Subj: SHK 7.0475 Re: Oregon Shakespeare Festival (2) From: Armstrong Eric Date: Friday, 28 Jun 1996 15:05:46 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0488 *SNL* Spring 1996, Shakespeare Summer Festivals (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rinda Frye Date: Friday, 28 Jun 96 14:36:36 EDT Subject: SHK 7.0475 Re: Oregon Shakespeare Festival I thought that Libby Appel was about to move to Ashland, I assumed as artistic director. If so, that should bode well for the festival. I just saw her production of The Tempest at the Indiana Rep last month and it was quite good. The production used just 7 actors, rather elegantly--Ariel and Miranda doubled, as did Caliban and Antonio, which made for some interesting psychological permutations in their relationship with Prospero. The cast was multi-racial and the Trinculo/Francisco doubling was performed by a woman--all of which seemed to underline the theatrical magic of the piece. The stage was largely bare--occasionally an actor dragged on a huge piece of driftwood to sit on, and Ariel at one point sat on the proverbial swing which seems to defend from the flies of so many Shakespearean productions these days, and the stage space was defined by screens which functioned as scrims when lit with rear projections from behind (for the banquet and Juno masque). All in all, though, it was a lovely production, well spoken, with an emphasis on the language and the actors' ability to transform themselves as needed by the play, rather than on pageantry and elaborate costume. Sorry I don't have the cast list in front of me in my office. If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to share that. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Armstrong Eric Date: Friday, 28 Jun 1996 15:05:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0488 *SNL* Spring 1996, Shakespeare Summer Festivals I would like to include two productions not really in Festivals but based in Toronto this summer. 1. Shakespeare in the Rough, at Winslow Park 1 blk south of the Danforth, between Logan and Carlaw, presents WT outdoors Friday, Saturdays and Sundays, Jul 19 - Aug 25 '96 at 2:00 p.m. Free, with a pass the hat at the end. Dir. Dawn Mari McCaugherty. 2. Shakespeare in the Park, (Canadian Stage Company) , at High Park, presents MND. [sorry don't have dates or times]. Also pay-what-you-can. Regards, Eric Armstrong. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 07:53:33 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0495 Re: What Emilia Knew Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0495. Monday, 1 July 1996. (1) From: Susan Mather Date: Sunday, 30 Jun 1996 01:12:22 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0477 What Emilia Knew (2) From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Sunday, 30 Jun 1996 16:21:27 +1000 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0489 Re: What Emilia Knew (3) From: Dale Lyles Date: Sunday, 30 Jun 1996 21:46:10 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0489 Re: What Emilia Knew (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Sunday, 30 Jun 1996 01:12:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0477 What Emilia Knew I have found this latest topic on Emilia interesting for I don't think there is enough study done on the "minor" characters. I quote minor only because there does not seem to be any character that should be overlooked in Shakespeare's dramas. I am getting the sense that Emilia is both friend and foe...that while she is close to Desdemona, she nevertheless harbors envy in her heart at the same time for Othello & Desdemona have a relationship that perhaps she had once known with Iago. Maybe I see this because I've been watching too much Days of Our Lives & Another World instead of doing my homework...hmmmm, could be, but, just a thought. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Sunday, 30 Jun 1996 16:21:27 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0489 Re: What Emilia Knew A recent collection of postings on the question of what Emilia knew seem to me to provide an unusually neat caution on the dangers of trying to make definitive statements about characters from Shakespeare's or just about anybody's playscripts outside the context of a given production. Thomas E. Ruddick's opinion that "Emilia's character does not possess high ethics, if her declarations to Desdemona during the unpinning scene are any indications. Emilia would not use her husband so by this holy light--but she might do it in the dark (chuckle). Desdemona would not do such a thing for the world--but Emilia insists that the world's a great price for a small vice. These lines contrast Emilia's selfish motives to Desdemona's pure ones, and they establish Emilia as concerned only for herself." may provide a recognisable description of some Emilias but certainly not of others that I've seen. In any case it requires a selective deafness to Emilia's follow-up, "Ud's pity, who would not make her husband a cuckold to make him a monarch? I should venture purgatory for't." Is "selfish" the only way to play these lines? Tunis Romein then quotes >Othello: You have seen nothing then? >Emilia: Nor ever heard, nor ever did suspect. >Othello: Yes, you have seen Cassio and she together. >Emilia: But then I saw no harm,and then I heard > Each syllable that breath made up between them. as evidence that Emilia must realise that Othello suspects Cassio. Yes and no. It might equally well be argued, on the basis of Othello's reaction in performance to this interchange, (which in any case goes on for much longer than this quote, and gives Emilia the chance to defend Desdemona's relationship with Cassio in great and convincing detail) that Emilia thinks that Cassio has been proven innocent and is now no longer a suspect. Romein's various responses to the question ("How do we explain Emilia's behavior? Does she consciously withhold this information out of some vicious antagonism toward Desdemona? Do we label her a passive-aggressive co-culprit? Do we blame Shakespeare for sloppy writing?") are all possible but not exhaustive, and different Othellos and Emilias in different productions may well suggest a wide range of other interpretative options. Or it may well not even be an important question at all. Finally, Dan Lowenstein's, "I wonder, though, if there is any way for a director to communicate this understanding to a modern audience, which will not understand the words "ta'en out" to mean "copied". Who is to say what a modern audience (which consists of a wide range of different people) will understand? (Having played Cassio myself, and worked as assistant director, in a production many years ago, I remember that the New Penguin Edition which we used then has a note on this line saying that "ta'en out" means "copied", and I would understand it in this sense. Dan Lowenstein's reading about removing identifying marks would never even have occurred to me--though after this it probably will the next time I see the play.) Some members of a modern audience will be familiar with the fairly standard reading of "ta'en out" as "copied". Others won't. In some productions it will be such a minor point as not to be worth worrying about, but if an actor or director wants to make a big deal of it and can find a way of doing so, then they'll surely go for it. I'd agree that it might make a difference for the actor playing Emilia if s/he thinks that Emilia is just borrowing the handkerchief, but the point could pass more or less unnoticed in performance with not much damage being done, and the director can spend valuable time and energy on questions which will have a greater effect on the audience. Adrian Kiernander (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Sunday, 30 Jun 1996 21:46:10 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0489 Re: What Emilia Knew Several of us have commented on the seeming contradictions in Emilia's character as being the result of Shakespeare's sloppy writing. In our company, we have always referred to the "Shakespearean flaw," that stunning contradiction which a close study of the text will reveal in every single one of his plays. Our solution to all of the flaws is to shrug our shoulders, smile indulgently, and get on with the business of turning the script into a play, secure in the knowledge that the audience will never notice it. I've never had an actor unable to deal with the fact that there are apparent inconsistencies; most of them just play each scene "at the moment," if that makes any sense, and the text just sweeps us and the audience along. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:44:12 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0496 Re: Marlowe; Hubert; Antony Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0496. Wednesday, 3 July 1996. (1) From: John Velz Date: Monday, 1 Jul 1996 08:16:33 +0200 Subj: Shakespeare and Marlowe (2) From: David Evett Date: Monday, 1 Jul 96 15:17:06 EST Subj: Hubert and John (3) From: Marga Munkelt Date: Tuesday, 02 Jul 1996 10:34:26 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0492 Qs: Hubert & Arthur; Shakespeare and Marlowe (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Monday, 1 Jul 1996 08:16:33 +0200 Subject: Shakespeare and Marlowe Jennifer Formichelli asks about Shakespeare and Marlowe. The best study is Charles Forker's chapter in a new book from Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, ed. John W. Velz and called *Shakespeare's English Histories: A Quest for Form and Genre*. Also in that book check out A. Elizabeth Ross on *Henry V* as a reaction against the old-fashioned heroics of Marlowe's plays. Forker shows what Marlowe learned from Shakespeare's H6 plays and what Shakespeare borrowed from Marlowe in *Richard II* and many other plays. John V. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 1 Jul 96 15:17:06 EST Subject: Hubert and John The proposition that Prince Arthur's death on the rocks at the foot of Hubert's castle's walls culminates an elaborate practice designed to supply Hubert with "deniability" must take account not just of the basic facts but the actual development of the episode in the text. It has many puzzling features--most particularly the conversion of John's death sentence into the blinding by hot irons with which Arthur is threatened in 4.1. This issue aside, however, some less uncertain features remain. The first is the question why Hubert would want or need deniability. The play interestingly transforms the historical Hubert de Burgh, one of the richest and most powerful nobles of the time and holder of various high offices, into a person of no particular importance who catches John's attention as a potentially useful subordinate and is recruited in terms that make him John's personal servant. (Note that in 4.3.87 Bigot assails him for daring to attack a nobleman.) Although in principle servants were supposed to refuse to carry out orders that violated human and divine laws, and could be held accountable for criminal acts committed at their masters' behest, the primary obligation of servants was obedience, and in practice they tended not to be punished for carrying out their orders. Thus none of the hirelings who commit violence on behalf of Shakespeare's machiavels--Tyrrell and his underlings in _R3_, the murderers in _Mac_, the captain in _Lr_--are charged with or punished for their crimes, except perhaps by their own consciences. When they have done their dirty work they disappear. Hubert, hangs on, however; he escapes extra-legal execution at the hands of Salisbury and Bigot, apparently manages to persuade Fauconbridge of his innocence, and survives to bring us news of his master John's poisoning. Indeed, I think he becomes a much more interesting character if and when he chooses to disobey his master even at severe cost to himself. The second problem is that no such plot is explicitly devised. Neither John's request nor Hubert's assent says anything about concealment or public opinion. In the scene that follows John's request, it is Cardinal Pandulph, not John or Hubert, who explains to the Dauphin, Lewis, why John needs to murder Arthur, explores the public relations aspects of the situation, and outlines a plan for exploiting them to French advantage. The exchange reminds us that Shakespearean practice almost invariably lets the audience in on all the significant details of machiavellian schemes, from the intriguing of Suffolk and Richard of Gloucester in the first tetralogy, through the plots of Macbeth and Edmund, to that of Antonio and Sebastian in _The Tempest_--a practice that is not followed if Hubert's behavior is a charade. In the next moment Hubert is threatening to blind Arthur. In this scene Hubert repeatedly expresses his fear that his resolve will not stand up to the boy's appeal: "with his innocent prate / He will awake my mercy," and so on. Modern editors usually mark these as asides; if Hubert is trying to persuade the _audience_ that he is truly soft of heart, the speeches violate another general Shakespearean practice, in which machiavellian hypocrites--Richard of Gloucester, Iago, Edmund--reveal their hypocrisy to the audience in aside or soliloquy. An alternative possibility is that the speeches are really addressed to the "Executioners" laid on to help with the revolting task, who will then become witnesses in Hubert's defense. The question then becomes, why does he not only dismiss them during the crucial part of the scene, in which he actually grants Arthur mercy, but then propose to "fill the dogged spies with false reports" of Arthur's death? Beyond that, why tell John that Arthur is dead when he is not (4.2.68 ff.) and then, when it transpires that John has changed his mind, that he lives (4.2.251), without showing any anxiety that the change has come too late? The most plausible explanation for all this is the traditional one, that the play is exploring the political and moral vicissitudes that attend on a commitment to amoral _realpolitik_, and especially when that commitment is incomplete, and is undermined by a correspondingly incomplete commitment to high moral principle, and that the exploration is underlined by the piercing irony of Arthur's unwilled suicide just at the point where his reprieve has been sounded--a trial run for the even more painful irony of the murder of Cordelia. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marga Munkelt Date: Tuesday, 02 Jul 1996 10:34:26 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0492 Qs: Hubert & Arthur; Shakespeare and Marlowe Query: the dropped letter 'h' in Antony: See the first commentary note (0.1, p. 5) in the New Variorum Editiin of *Ant.*, ed. Marvin Spevack. M.M. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 10:22:20 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0497 Qs: Fair Maid; Textual Criticism; Chaos and Order Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0497. Wednesday, 3 July 1996. (1) From: Ann Flower Date: Monday, 1 Jul 1996 11:27:18 -0400 (EDT) Subj: The Fair Maid of Clifton (2) From: Tunis Romein Date: Tuesday, 2 Jul 1996 23:13:39 -0400 Subj: Textual criticism question (3) From: Laura Cerrato Date: Wednesday, 3 Jul 1996 10:21:01 ARG3 Subj: Chaos and Order (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ann Flower Date: Monday, 1 Jul 1996 11:27:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Fair Maid of Clifton I am writing my dissertation on portraits in Renaissance drama and have read that William Sampson wrote a play called The Fair Maid of Clifton with a portrait in it. I have been unable to find this play anywhere, and was wondering if any of you have read it or seen it anywhere. I believe it was written/entered in S.R./acted around 1629. If you know of a publisher or anthology with this play, or recall other little known plays with portraits in them (paintings, sculpture, effigies, etc.), I would greatly appreciate any information. My e-mail address is amf8140@is.nyu.edu Ann Flower (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tunis Romein Date: Tuesday, 2 Jul 1996 23:13:39 -0400 Subject: Textual criticism question. I would like to give students in my literary criticism class (beginning in September) an exercise in textual criticism and would appreciate suggestions on how I might do this with a scene from Shakespeare. Does anyone know of a scene from Shakespeare, preferably one that isn't of great length, that has presented textual critics with interesting problems in determining an authoritative text? What I would like to do would be to give my students three versions of a scene--the first folio version and, ideally, two quarto versions, and ask them to construct a plausible edition of that scene based both on internal and external evidence--but mainly internal. I have no idea about whether this is a practical assignment, but any suggestions or comments would be appreciated. Perhaps these should be sent to me directly since this issue may not be of interest to most people who subscribe to this list. Tunis Romein Charleston, SC USA romeint@awod.com (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Cerrato Date: Wednesday, 3 Jul 1996 10:21:01 ARG3 Subject: Chaos and Order Could anybody recommend recent bibliography on the problem of CHAOS AND ORDER in Shakespeare's drama? Thank you. Laura Cerrato postmast@liting.filo.uba.ar ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 10:27:50 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0498 Re: Back to Shylock; Acting Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0498. Wednesday, 3 July 1996. (1) From: David Evett Date: Monday, 1 Jul 96 15:06:02 EST Subj: Back to Shylock (2) From: Milla Riggio Date: Wednesday, 03 Jul 1996 09:28:58 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0493 Re: Back to Shylock; Michael Kahn's Comment (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 1 Jul 96 15:06:02 EST Subject: Back to Shylock The question of what Shylock means when he speaks of catching Antonio on the hip and feeding fat the ancient grudge gets an stimulating response in the production of _Merchant of Venice_ running this summer at Stratford, Ontario. As directed by Marti Maraden, Douglas Rain plays a Shylock whose reaction to the pervasive anti-Semitism of Venice in general and Antonio in particular has been withdrawal and protective coloration. In contrast to Roland Hewgill's florid, passionate Antonio, and the casually expansive crew of Gratiano, Lorenzo, Solario, and Solanio, whose world is clearly their oyster, Rain's Shylook is reserved, austere, even prim: he looks and talks like a Quaker banker. He does have some humor, however; as if he and Maraden had tacitly augmented 1.3.35 or so to read, "I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you, walk with you, jest with you. . . ," he and Antonio do indeed play the bonding scene as a kind of protracted joke, taking off from the punning on "rat" in 22-25, treating the Jacob material as a piece of elegant persiflage, and climaxing in boisterous laughter, especially from Antonio, at "Content, in faith, I'll seal to such a bond, / And say there is much kindness in the Jew." (Bassanio is far less comfortable.) All this vanishes with the flight of Jessica. Maraden has set the play in Italy just after the coming of Fascism; the coffeehouse where the Venetians meet to make plans and share news is also frequented by blackshirts, and though the young male speaking characters do not wear those clothes all but Bassanio share some of their attitudes. When Shylock comes there to look for Tubal in 3.1 the waiters tilt the empty chairs against the tables to prevent the Jews from taking a seat. His rage at the act of betrayal but also theft, which initially provokes him to echo Antonio's arm-waving passion (though never at the cost of his dignity), turns cold and methodical, especially during the courtroom scene. Yet Maraden has Susan Coyne, as Portia, play deep shock at the severity of the Duke's sentence, and she is even more horrified to receive a thumbs up sign from a passing blackshirt as she is leaving the courtroom-- this "mercy" is pretty severely strained, and the audience is clearly invited to reflect on the ways by which habitual ethnic discrimination turns really nasty. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Wednesday, 03 Jul 1996 09:28:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0493 Re: Back to Shylock; Michael Kahn's Comment Trying to answer Thomas Ruddick's challenge to quote Michael Kahn accurately, I have just lost a letter containing several pages of Kahn's Preface. Perhaps the electronic gods intervened fortuitously. In any case, the system I use does insert itself in this way, cancelling letters without recall. So I'll give you a much shorter version and hope to be able to get through it. Most of all, I would like to take Kahn's name out of this discussion altogether. I feel I have done a major disservice to a director who has produced some of the best Shakespeare plays I have ever seen, plays I could not in my dreams direct. And I have been outraged at the pomposity of those who would leap in headfirst without reflection on their own arrogance at the chance to denounce by proxy and without respect their own interpretation of my bad paraphrase. As inaccurate as my comments may have been, they did not include the silly ideas they were interpreted as having meant. The process of textual interpretation in this exchange has been as interesting to me as an observer of what I set in motion as anything else. But before I lose the letter again, let me set a little of the record straight. Basically, Michael was in a candid, humane, and entirely non-pompous way tracking his own development from the early decades of his career when, trained by the American school of acting that says that you only see "the tip of the iceberg" in the text, with 90% submerged, to a period when he now sees and appreciates the contradictions of Shakespeare's characters and the complexities of his situation. He began by noting his discovery that "gentle Portia," whom he had grown up thinking of as Ellen Terry, said, "Let all of his complexion choose me so" with reference to the Prince of Morocco. "And I read that, and I thought, did she really say that - that sort of racial slur? Our gentle Portia, did she actually say "Let all of his complexion choose me so..."? "There was an asterisk next to the word complexion. I looked down at the bottom of the page in my edition, and the note read "complexion: character." I thought, well, I don't believe that. Then I went back to the first scene of Morocco's and he said,"Mislike me not formy complexion, the shadowed livery of the burnished sun." So I thought, well now, here is the truth in the text, in which our wonderful Portia still says, "Let everybody who is this color not get me." Complexion is what she says. Here is an editor unwilling to accept that because it is unpalatable and doesn't fit into the complexity of a woman who is eventually going to say, two hours later, though she doesn't know it, "The quality of mercy is not strained...." [THEN Michael talks about directing an excellent actor in the role of Shylock....] "The actor, a very talented and accomplished actor, who played Shylock played him with gremendous nuance and dynamic range. But at this phrase I could not understand what he was saying: "OH MY DAUGHTER (oh my ducats)." I said, "What was that? `OH MY DAUGHTER (ohmyducats)." What's this bit after "daughter"? "Ducats." It was silly. Shakespeare wrote "Oh my daughter, oh my ducats." Two items. Shylock is worried about his daughter and his ducats.... [THEN Michael reflects on the implications of this dual concern with respect to the potential anti-Semitism of the play, ending with a comment on a society in which Portia is equated with gold and in which Shlock equates his daughter with ducats - a man openly interested in money - and in which spendthrift Bassanio chooses the lead casket. He lets himself reflect on the kind of society, the accumulative society, that is at the heart of this play, made clearer by the CONTRADICTIONS in Shylock's character. And he comes at last to the part of the Preface which I attempted to paraphrase - of course, Thomas Ruddick, because I agree with it!!....] "I say this often to actors: `It's one thing to say the text is the most important thing, but it's another thing to understand the text so well that you understand not just what the characters are saying but why the characters are saying these particular words.' I'm not talking about finding the subtext. I do not believe there is any subtext in Shakespearean plays. You know, I'm an American director. I was brought up to belive that the text is only on tenth of the iceberg and there are nine tenths submerged beneanth, so you play not waht you say but something else. But, no. I think you play what you say in Shakespeare.... "This kind of precision is what I have in mind when I say that I do not believe there are subtexts in Shakespeare. If the plays had subtexts, they would be at least an hour shorter. But Shakespeare wrote exactly what he meant...If a character actually means something other than what the lines say, very often everyone else leaves the stage and the character geta soliloquy to think it through or, as in the case of Richard III, Iago, or Prince Hal, to tell the audience what is really going on instead." NOW: what kind of misinterpretive storm have I set off this time, in response to Thomas Ruddick. I can scarcely guess. But, please, folks, don't hold Michael Kahn responsible for my choice of selections. Wait for the Preface itself and vent your spleen on the object, not on hearsay or on excerpted quotations. I set this off. The responsibility is mine. But I would like now to steer the discussion away from someone who is not participating in it! Best, Milla Riggio ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 10:32:36 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0499 Re: Emilia's Inconsistency; Fin de siecle texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0499. Wednesday, 3 July 1996. (1) From: John Velz Date: Monday, 1 Jul 1996 19:51:47 +0200 Subj: Emilia's Inconsistency (2) From: Genevieve Juliette Guenther Date: Tuesday, 2 Jul 1996 03:21:06 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0462 Q: Fin de siecle texts (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Monday, 1 Jul 1996 19:51:47 +0200 Subject: Emilia's Inconsistency It is Dale Lyles' comment that makes me break a silence about Emilia that I have been keeping from the first of this discussion. It seems to me very strange that no one (I think) who has contributed on this subject has noted that there is a huge discrepancy in *Othello* between two time schemes: 1) "short time" that has the events of the play take up one night (Act I) and a very few days if we leave out the sea voyage to Cyprus and 2) "long time" that suggests that a very large amount of time has passed from Act I to Act V. No one, for instance flinched even when quoting the lines Emilia has about her husband asking her to filch the handkerchief a hundered times. A hundred times in two days? And in Act V Othello himself tells Gratiano that "Iago knows / That she with Cassio hath the act of shame / A thousand times committed." Even hyperbole in the stress of ultimate emotion cannot account for this "thousand times" in 3 or 4 days at most. Dale Lyles will be happy to receive confirmation of her theatrical experience. No one noticed the double time in *Othello* until the middle of this present century, if I am remembering correctly. Surely every acting company knew about it, but the scholars and critics did not. Nor did the audiences. Rather than regard this as a horrible blunder, we should think of it as I was taught to think of it half a century ago in a Shakespeare course: as a brilliant ploy on Shakespeare's part: The short time persuades us that Othello is swept off his feet by events and has no chance to think it over rationally (cf. "hurry up" time in *Romeo and Juliet*); at the same time, the long time makes us feel that Iago has worked on Othello for a very long time to persuade this honorable man that he should think ill of his wife (note the beginning of scene 1 Act IV where the dialogue has been going on out of the hearing of the audience--antecedentless pronoun, "so"). Only a generation raised on Cecil B. DeMille with his agonizing efforts at plausibility would insist on consistency in the time scheme or in the character of Emilia. She is what the moment needs her to be. And as Dale Lyles says, the audiences seldom notice. Shakespeare does this all the time. Portia in *JC* has no opportunity alone with Brutus to know about the intention of the conspiracy. Yet in 2.4. she knows all. Some scholars wisely nod and say "evidence that a scene has dropped out". But audiences respond to the moment when Brutus promises to tell her all--and then leaves with Ligarius for Caesar's house and for the assassination--and then later respond to the anguish of a Portia who knows what is planned and cannot contain herself in the stress of uncertainty about the outcome of the assassination plot. Enough and more than enough for me to say, but I would an if I could, go on and on about this. Best to you all-- John V. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Genevieve Juliette Guenther Date: Tuesday, 2 Jul 1996 03:21:06 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0462 Q: Fin de siecle texts >I'm beginning to develop an undergrad honors seminar on the turn of the >century, and I'm trying to put together a reading list of all kinds of texts >(primary and secondary) produced in and dealing with the 1590s and 1600s. One >problem is selecting texts that are readily available in print or easily (and >legally) reproducible. (_Hamlet_ is an obvious choice in the former category.) Perhaps Mr. Fassler has received all the information he needs to put together his list -- my computer has been feeling neglected, and has been behaving accordingly, so apologies if this question has been already posed, but: what do texts from the 1590's and 1600's have to do with the turn of our century? The connection between the two periods might not be so clear to Mr. Fassler's addressees as it is to the questioner himself. Genevieve Guenther UC, Berkeley ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 08:57:15 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0500 Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe; Textual Criticism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0500. Friday, 5 July 1996. (1) From: Douglas S. Bruster Date: Wednesday, 3 Jul 1996 10:45:45 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0496 Re: Marlowe (2) From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Wednesday, 3 Jul 1996 17:19:25 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0497 Q: Textual Criticism (3) From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, July 5, 1996 Subj: Textual Criticism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas S. Bruster Date: Wednesday, 3 Jul 1996 10:45:45 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0496 Re: Marlowe Re: the "Shakespeare and Marlowe" query. This recommendation will probably be seconded by others, but I'd like to offer a strong endorsement of James Shapiro's _Rival Playwrights: Marlowe, Jonson, Shakespeare_ (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991). Douglas Bruster (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Wednesday, 3 Jul 1996 17:19:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0497 Q: Textual Criticism As far as the idea of an exercise in textual criticism, the first thing that leaps to my mind is Hamlet, since it is the only play that exists in three distinct versions with some very interesting variations. For your own reference, there is a parallel column edition called The Three Text Hamlet. Someone else probably has the specific publishing information, off hand I only remember that it was published about 5 years ago and that it is excellent for comparing Q1 Q2 and the Folio texts. Annalisa Castaldo Temple University [Editor's Note: Bertram, Paul, and Bernice W. Kliman. *The Three-Text HAMLET: Parallel Texts of the First and Second Quartos and the First Folio*. New York: AMS Press, 1991.] (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, July 5, 1996 Subject: Textual Criticism Here are two illustrative examples and an exercise. To illustrate the importance of stage directions in the so-called "bad" quartos, use the closet scene in Q1, Q2, and F1 *Hamlet* and compare to Peter Alexander and Riverside modern texts. Riverside includes Q1's "Enter the ghost in his night gowne"; Alexander does not. To illustrate modern editing, start with Alexander and Riverside 5.1.24 of *Romeo and Juliet*: "Is it [e'en] so? Then I [defy] you stars!" Compare to Q1's "Is it euen {s}o then I defie my Starres"; Q2's "Is it in {s}o? then I denie you starres"; and F1's "Is it euen {s}o? / Then I denie you Starres." As an exercise, discuss the staging of *Romeo and Juliet* 5.3 by analyzing Q1, Q2, and F1, especially paying attention to the stage directions. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 09:00:29 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0501 Production of "Julius Caesar" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0501. Friday, 5 July 1996. From: Thomas Bishop Date: Thursday, 4 Jul 1996 09:48:17 +1000 Subject: Production of "Julius Caesar" I thought SHAKSPER members might be interested in a report on a new production of Julius Caesar currently running in Melbourne (Australia). The production takes a strongly contemporary line in setting and action, giving Roman politics the bustle and hype of contemporary corporate and media government. Senators (both men and women) are cabinet members, conduct press interviews, summon servants on intercoms and shred documents when things come unglued, as they do. Both Bruts' and Antony's Rostrum speechs are conducted as multiemdia press conferences to a corps of TV and print reporters, and Caesar himself lives in a constant welter of flashbulbs, that is when not relaxing in his Gucci black-leather armchairs, or twisting arms at Cabinet meetings round the long table. Strong traces of the film noir political thriller hang about the production, to good effect. The predominant design scheme is monochrome corporate authority, with lots of glossy gadgets (Caesar's ghost appears on big-screen TV), and the whole is accompanied by a disturbing underlay of pedal tones and chordal outbreaks that gives it something of the feel of a film ("Edge of Darkness" perhaps). The "portent" scene is especially atmospheric here, with Cicero appearing dimly behind a chain-link screen and under a black umbrella to quiz Casca and others, like an evil twin of John Guilgud. Overall, this works extremely well, and the audience responds at once and with enthusiasm. The scenes of conspiracy are especially powerful and some excellent acting in the lesser conspirator parts (especially Casca) brings the gallery of political characters vividly to life: the reluctant one, the pushy one, the "debutante", the bagman, the numbers man: one recognizes them all. Here Shakespeare's dialogue fuses very effectively with a familiar kind of modern story. These were the best scenes in the piece. Other aspects, while no less powerful, were less wholly convincing. Casting a woman as Antony was a bold and welcome move, but the particular Antony managed not to find all the resonance she needed (in part this is because the actor must come on effectively cold after the murder and at once move to the centre, without any "warm up"). Staging the Rostrum scene before microphones limits what Antony can do without a really outstanding vocal ability, which this actor, though I admire her very much, does not have. The battle scenes were always going to be a problem in this corporatized environment, and they proved the weakest parts -- much running about and not so much shape. When things stilled, the play was again very powerful, as in the quarrel scene between Brutus and Cassius, where the edge of desperation in both, barely under restraint, cut very raw. Suddenly we were in very nasty territory out of, say, a more eloquent David Mamet. But some bits became rather silly: the confrontation of leaders before Phillipi was staged as a "Meet the Press" conference, complete with earnest moderator; and when Cassius died, his military staff immediately set about shredding his documents. The play has had an enormous success here, regularly filling a theatre which the Melbourne Theatre Company has recently had difficulty keeping up, mostly through bad program choices. With the imminent release of Richard III in cinemas, and Othello currently doing quite well there, plus an excellent "Italian circus" production of "Much Ado" by John Bell's company in May, we could be said to be having a sort of small revival at present. Tom Bishop (your roving reporter) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 09:02:50 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0502 [was 0SHK 7.052] Re: What Emilia Knew Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0502. Friday, 5 July 1996. From: Sydney Kasten Date: Thursday, 4 Jul 1996 14:00:06 +0200 (IST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0495 Re: What Emilia Knew Poor Emilia! One of the few straightforward people in the play and taking all this flak! Is this Iago's ultimate revenge, letting her take the fall? Actually we know a fair bit about her. First of all she is taciturn. When we first meet her in Cyprus, after his throwaway condescending remark about suffering her tongue, and Desdemona's rejoinder that "she has no speech", Iago has to admit that "she puts her tongue a little in her heart and chides with thinking". In the scene of light hearted banter that follows Emilia manages to utter two words. She really only finds her voice when fired by indignation as when Iago confirms that Desdemona has been called a whore, and even then much of her utterances or short phrases. Even when she really gets going, lambasting Othello after discovering the murder, most of what she says consists of phrases that are half a line in length or less. We also know that she is happy to give good news but has the misfortune of not being listened to (Cassandra?). After Cassio's ignominious dismissal by Othello, Iago orders Emilia to get Cassio together with Desdemona for the ostensible purpose of getting her to plead his case. Instead, Emilia lets Cassio know that Desdemona and Othello have discussed the matter, and that Othello explained why he had to demote him, that he has not lost his faith in him, "but protests he loves you and needs *no other suitor but his likings* to take the safest occasion by the front to bring you in again." Clear enough: Don't push it Cassio. Let nature take its course. But does he listen? Rather than rejoicing at this good news and going home to get some sleep he proceeds to enmesh himself in Iago's net. When Othello questions Emilia about Desdemona she gives forthright answers. I presume she expects to be believed. Her outburst when Othello justifies the murder on the basis of Desdemona's supposed adultery with Cassio is surely an expression of her indignation that Othello didn't believe her simple factual answers. She understands male psychology. She was able to handle her husband's suspicions regarding her own fidelity well enough that their marriage remained stable. She could therefore be forgiven if she thought that Othello's jealousy was par for the course, and that he would get over it has her husband did. I can't see how any one could take the remarks during the unpinning scene other than as banter designed to cheer up her despondent friend, with a little moralizing against excesses of speech ("...thy solicitor shall rather die Than give thy cause away." Des. to Cas. in the presence of Emi. Opening of III,iii.) thrown in for good measure? The key word is not "such a deed", but rather "for all the world": Cordelia's rebuke to her sisters. I have just rewatched Zoe Wanamaker's Emilia philosophizing to Imogen Stubbs' Desdemona in a Trevor Nunn TV production. There is no salaciousness or pandering, but rather a hard sad look at the plight of the female of the species. The parameters that for her justified infidelity were quite clear. She may have been thinking of the Biblical Esther who allowed herself to become the concubine of the king, even though, as tradition has it, she was married to Mordechai. (From this vantage point Esther was eventually able to plead to the king against the destruction of her people (Cassio), and frustrate the plan of the evil Haman (the king's "ancient" wharever that means?) In the final event Mordechai was elevated to a position of power in the empire.) The TV camera in Trevor Nunn's production was on Emilia's face when Othello mentioned the handkerchief. We saw her undergo a fleeting shock and then stare stolidly forward. When husband and wife continued their discussion she made a tactful (and perhaps tactical) retreat to the other side of the set where she would not have to be an eavesdropper. As for how she understood her husband's desire for the trifle: It was a fascinating artifact in its own right. When Cassio found it he was so enthralled he asked Bianca to "take me this work out" before the rightful owner claimed it. (There you are Dan! All the director has to do to elucidate the meaning of the term is to maintain the audience"s attention for the length of the next scene.) I continue to be amazed at Shakespeare. If he reworked themes and plots he did so like a Japanese sword maker who beats the white hot iron flat, folds it lengthwise, bathes it once more in the hot charcoal and repeats the procedure time and time again, ending up with and instrument of extreme strength and flexibilty and with an edge that will last for centuries. Syd Kasten ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 09:05:07 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0503 Q: Shakespeare on AUDIO Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0503. Friday, 5 July 1996. From: Ed Peschko Date: Thursday, 4 Jul 1996 15:08:59 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Shakespeare on AUDIO Forgive me if this is a FAQ, but here goes: What Shakespeare plays are available on Compact Disc? I'm aware of Caedmon, and of the Renaissance Theatre Company (Branagh et al.), but the only plays that both companies have produced on CD are the 'favorites' -- Macbeth, King Lear, etc. I'm *hoping* that the BBC has bothered to put to audio the entire canon that they did in the 1970's (love those versions, especially Twelfth Night). Ditto for laserdisc, or NTSC videotape. Anyways, anybody who has a clue about this, let me know. Thanks, Ed ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 09:28:54 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0504 Re: Textual Criticism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0504. Saturday, 6 July 1996. (1) From: Nick Clary Date: Friday, 05 Jul 1996 10:18:31 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Textual Criticism (2) From: Corrie Zoll Date: Friday, 5 Jul 1996 22:17:56 -0400 Subj: Textual Criticism (3) From: Thomas L. Berger Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 1996 10:21 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0497 Q: Textual Criticism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Clary Date: Friday, 05 Jul 1996 10:18:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Textual Criticism A few days ago I sent the response below to Tunis Romein. This morning's postings indicate that others may be interested in an assignment like the one described in the original call for suggestions. * * * Let me recommend two resource texts: *The Three-Text Hamlet* edited by Paul Bertram and Bernice W. Kliman (AMS Press, 1991), and "Enfolded *Hamlet* edited by Bernice W. Kliman (Hardin Aasand, Nick Clary, and Eric Rasmussen) Extra Issue, *Shakespeare Newsletter* (Spring 1996). In the first, you will find all three texts in parallel columns, which will give you a field day of choices: there are Q2-only passages and F1-only passage, each of which have their own correspondences with Q1 and some of which have no correspondences with Q1. In the second, you will be able to see where Q2 and F1 vary, according to a system of brackets that identify not only Q2-only and F1-only passages, but also words and phrases that differ between the two. In the Introduction, Bernice distinguishes the bracketing system employed in the "Enfolded" text, which differs from a conflation, from the system of differentiation used in the newest Folger Library paperback. The "Enfolded *Hamlet* may be purchased for classroom use from the *Shakespeare Newsletter* at a reasonable price (less than the cost of the least expensive paperback). As this is a working copy-text, your students might take special delight in participating in a "real project." As one of the co-editors I would welcome yours and their observations---also your estimates of its usefulness to your teaching purposes. If you are interested in specific recommendations, I can offer a few from some pivotal scenes (from the play-within-the-play to Ophelia's mad scenes--the section that I am spcifically collating. By return e-mail you can let me know whether you want a few specific suggestions. There are one or two recently published books that you may wish to secure for your library, particularly if *Hamlet* will be one of your target texts. Good luck. I believe this is an interesting exercise. Make sure that your students trouble to examine some of the earliest 17th-century editions, as well as the variorum editions (from Johnson's first "unofficial" ones in 1765 to the first "official one," the Steevens/Johnson edition of 1773, and from the early 19th-century ones after Malone's in 1790 to the H.H. Furness New Variorum of 1877). They will need to develop a historical perspective on the evolution of Shakespeare's texts through its many transmutations in print. This includes the earliest reading and performance texts without named editors, as well as edited texts without significant commentary (from Rowe's 1709 edition to Theobald's published notes in 1726; from Theobald's (1733) and Capell's (1767) voluminous editions to the array of extra-editorial publications of gathered emendations and commentaries, which began to proliferate at the turn into the 19th century. I am currently organizing a seminar in Variorum Editing. Assignments like the one you have in mind will certainly figure into the exercises that our students will do for me. Keep me posted on your developing plans. Nick Clary (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Corrie Zoll Date: Friday, 5 Jul 1996 22:17:56 -0400 Subject: Textual Criticism To Tunis Romein: Try the last scene of King Lear, in which the Quarto and Folio versions, which vary in only a few words, have significantly different meanings. I would be interested in hearing discussion of this topic on the list. Any takers? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas L. Berger Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 1996 10:21:15 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0497 Q: Textual Criticism In reply to Tunis Romein's query about textual criticism, I would make one remark, one suggestion. Remark: If you throw those students into HAMLET's vexed textual problems, you may very well excite some, but others might drown and be put off by the whole proposition. Suggestion: I've had some success with MND, 5.1 in the folio and the quarto (1600), with Egeus replacing Philostrate in the Folio, with Lysander feeding Theseus the descriptions of the possible merriments for the wedding feast and letting Theseus respond. By having Egeus simply appear in Act 5, the tone changes. Then too, who was Tawyer and where did he get that trumpet? Good luck, tom berger ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 09:33:57 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0505 Re: Shakespeare on AUDIO; Shakespeare and Marlowe Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0505. Saturday, 6 July 1996. (1) From: Mark Womack Date: Friday, 5 Jul 1996 17:33:05 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0503 Q: Shakespeare on AUDIO (2) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 1996 09:47:18 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0500 Shakespeare and Marlowe (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Womack Date: Friday, 5 Jul 1996 17:33:05 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0503 Q: Shakespeare on AUDIO I have a partial answer to Ed Peschko's query about Shakespeare plays on CD. The BBC Radio / Renaissance Theater Company have, I believe, released three Shakespeare plays on CD: Hamlet (1992), Romeo and Juliet (1993), and King Lear (1994). I have only seen the Caedmon recordings on tape, not CD. Mark Womack womack@mail.utexas.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 1996 09:47:18 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0500 Shakespeare and Marlowe OK, I'll bite, since it looks like no one else is going to, much. This topic seems to me the only really important question of "influence" (as opposed to a more benign notion of "source") in Shakespeare's work. There is no doubt that Shakespeare (what are our metaphors for this?) grappled with, responded to, worked out/over/through, etc, what Marlowe's poetry meant to him and could do for his over many years. About ten by my count, though there are even later echoes (are Ariel's "yellow sands" a late and pacific echo of Hero and Leander's -- for a happier couple NOT sundered by drowning?). Several critics of note have asked this question, with variable answers. Aside from the kooks who think (along with Woody Allen) that Shakespeare WAS Marlowe or Marlowe WAS Shakespeare, and that neither of them was trustworthy, I can think of: F.P. Wilson, Muriel Bradbrook, Nicholas Brooke, Wilbur Sanders, Marge Garber, James Shapiro, and of course the indefatigable Harold Bloom, who more or less owns this sort of question and who, for all the flack he gets, has still one of the most original and responsive minds (not to mention ears) in this business. I think a lot of the stakes here lie in (or can be read in) the choice of shaping metaphors for the relations of the writers. Bloom speaks repeatedly of Shakespeare's having "swallowed" Marlowe whole, like Jonah and the Whale (except for Barabas, whom he apparently couldnt digest). This is the strongest image of the many on offer. Shapiro speaks of a process of "parody and containment" which is milder, though the latter sometimes sounds like a pale (or impaled) version of Bloom's more bodily engulfment. Shapiro looks for specific echoes and evocations of Marlowe's lines, Bloom goes for wholesale parallels of representational mode or mood. Garber's key image is of the two playing a kind of poker, putting down plays to trump one another. The aggressivity of this looks to me more like the relations between literary critics than between poets, as though a poet wrote a poem -mainly- to show up another poet (OK sometimes they do), and not from some other need that had to "speak with" that poet in order to define its own terms more clearly. Would it improve, or at least modulate, our way of speaking, to imagine the two playwrights, even after Marlowe's death, engaging in a kind of "conversation" with one another, as poets often do. "So that's how it seems to you?....But it seems to me rather -this- way..." Bloom in particular can be very subtle about these exchanges (he has proposed several taxonomies of ways of saying this in poems, not reducible to mere competitive aggression) though even he is inclined to stress the "trumping" aspects. When Shelley seriously disagrees with Coleridge about "Nature's message", he doesnt so much "parody and contain" him, or swallow him, or trump him, as reply to him: "Mont Blanc" for the "Hymn at Sunrise". In the relations between "The Jew of Malta" and "The Merchant of Venice" can we trace a similar process? "No, the world isnt like that, it's like this: love is possible. One can find one's way out of the wilderness, even the wilderness of monkeys." This makes Portia, and NOT Shylock, his principle imaginative response to Barabas, and explains why he showed no interest in "swallowing" the latter: less inability than disbelief. Marlowe might well have laughed rather bitterly at this, if he had been alinve still, and I dont myself think this is his most effective reply, but I think it is what he was trying to do. I rather think of the two poets as engaged in a kind of strongly felt debate with their plays, if you like, as their statements of "the case". This is competitive, if you like, but in a different way, in the way religions compete to assert their truths, or philosophies their insights. From this point of view, Marlowe's death becomes a kind of sublime attempt at a final word. Except, of course, that it wasnt. Well, let's see if that ball will roll. Tom Bishop ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 09:36:52 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0506 Re: Acting Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0506. Saturday, 6 July 1996. From: Rick Jones Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 1996 00:56:21 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0498 Re: Acting Shakespeare Thanks to Milla Riggio for posting what Michael Kahn "really said." In looking back at the post that touched off this particular furor, I find that her precis of his statement was indeed fairly accurate: of course, in the much shorter version, a number of *potentially* volatile statements were left unexplained. But there's really nothing there to elicit a firestorm. Why, then, the immoderation (including my own)? I suspect it has more to do with tone than with content: the implication (perceived by me, whether or not intended) that actors are, as a class, unable to see that post-Stanislavskian techniques don't always (ever?) work terribly well on pre-modern plays. I have no doubt that such actors do exist, but in my own experience of acting in and directing pre-modern plays, I have known perhaps two or three actors who might arguably have believed that even close to (literally) 90% of the meaning of a speech in a pre-modern play is "submerged". The several dozen others would put the figure at well under 50%, probably (on average) around 15%. True, that's not 0%, as Michael Kahn suggests, but even he can get to that figure only by a semantic quibble. He even points out such characters as Iago and Richard III, who tell us that they are about to engage in (what?) metatheatre (?). Thus, their subsequent actions are not literally SUB-textual, but they do represent a character's saying something and (specifically, unequivocally) not meaning it. That's what many (most?) actors would mean by the term "sub-text". But I really don't want to nit-pick here: or to deny Kahn a little hyperbole, if such indeed it is. At the risk of sounding hopelessly New Historicist here, I would suggest that Kahn is a man of his times. When he first started in the business, the Method was the single dominant theory of American actor training. That is no longer the case, and even those courses which emphasize Stanislavskian and/or post-Stanislavskian techniques now do so with far greater circumspection than may have been true a generation ago. Or at least so anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest. My own teaching is less based on American Method than it was a decade ago, which in turn was less "Method" than my own training a decade before that, which was in turn less "Method" than that of a decade earlier still. Many teachers, myself included, have adopted a pragmatic (I hope!) eclecticism: the last time I taught Acting II, I used three texts: David Ball's _Backwards and Forwards_, Cicely Berry's _The Actor and the Text_, and Uta Hagen's _Respect for Acting_. A little something for everyone... Anyway, I'm STILL unclear about Milla Riggio's (dare I say it?) motivation for posting the original Kahn paraphrase. How does this approach (or any other, for that matter) lead us to choose one interpretation over another in a case in which the specifics of meaning are not predetermined by the text? That is, no one is suggesting (or at least I'm not) that Shylock wouldn't jump at the chance of revenge should it present itself. The question is the extent of that revenge: death? public humiliation? economic ruin? I believe there is a case to be made for any of these options: I know which one I'd choose, but that's another matter. The point is that whatever choice is made will affect and be affected by a multitude of other choices: provided these choices create a coherent and consistent set of images/responses, I'm all for whichever choice an individual director and actor choose. With apologies for the intemperance of a couple posts ago... and for the length of this one, Rick Jones========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 21:46:57 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0507 Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0507. Monday, 8 July 1996. (1) From: Douglas S. Bruster Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 1996 10:58:38 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0505 Re: Shakespeare/Marlowe/Bloom (2) From: Charles Ross Date: Monday, 8 Jul 1996 09:55:58 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0505 Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe (3) From: Ed Bonahue Date: Monday, 8 Jul 1996 12:54:47 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe (4) From: Vincent J Mooney Jr. Date: Saturday, 06 Jul 1996 21:41:19 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0505 Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe w/ Editor's Note (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas S. Bruster Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 1996 10:58:38 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0505 Re: Shakespeare/Marlowe/Bloom I want to pick up on Tom Bishop's recent posting regarding questions of influence, intertextuality, and textual dialogue among Shakespeare and other writers and texts. Bishop points out that Harold Bloom has himself had a large influence on the way we understand these issues, and he's surely right to hint that sometimes that influence has been less than helpful. My major differences with Bloom are over the (for lack of a better term) "aristocratic" nature of his understanding of influence: to put it more briefly than it deserves, Great Poets read and respond to (devour, etc.) other Great Poets. While it would be foolish to say that a writer like Marlowe wasn't an informing presence to the works of many of his contemporaries--Shakespeare and Jonson included--a canonical approach to literary composition tends to erase the importance of writers who have not made it into the _Norton Anthology_, or modern reading lists. And in erasing that importance an exclusionary approach falsifies our understanding of these plays. We get, in such arguments, a literary House of Lords, but no Commons. The tendency I am describing here isn't confined to Bloom, of course: our profession rewards scholars who write on "important" authors. Not surprisingly, then, do many celebrated critical works construct narratives of influence that all but exclude non-canonical authors, regardless of the actual communities of influence and exchange that may have obtained historically. Along these lines, I would point to a relevant observation in Mary Thomas Crane's _Framing Authority_, which argues that the commonplace book-method of composition led early modern writers to see their engagement with "literature as the collection and redeployment of . . . fragments and not, in many cases, as the assimilation and imitation of whole works." It is part of Crane's argument that the account of imitation offered in _The Light in Troy_, for instance, doesn't adequately explain the real practices of reading and composition in early modern England. Those interested (as I was) in Bishop's remarks about intertextuality as dialogue might want to consult, for the term "textual dialogue," R.D. Bedford's _ Dialogues with Convention: Readings in Renaissance Poetry_; and, in addition to James Shapiro's _Rival Playwrights_, which I mentioned in an earlier post, two other books which have similar interests: Richard S. Ide's _Possessed with Greatness: The Heroic Tragedies of Chapman and Shakespeare_; and Robert N. Watson, _Ben Jonson's Parodic Strategy: Literary Imperialism in the Comedies_. Ide, I should point out, draws on a relevant statement by Anne Barton: "in the small, closely connected world of the Elizabethan and Jacobean playwrights, the evolution of dramatic form took the shape of a dialogue among plays. Writers reacted intensely to one another's work, and in a variety of ways." Finally, a very rich essay on source study generally--and new paradigms for the study of intertextuality--is Robert S. Miola, "Othello Furens," _Shakespeare Quarterly_ 41 (1990), pp. 49-69. Douglas Bruster (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Ross Date: Monday, 8 Jul 1996 09:55:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0505 Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe Thomas Bishop asks if Ariel's "yellow sands" are a "late and pacific echo of Marlowe's "Hero and Leander." Perhaps, but both Shakespeare and M. would have had in mind Aeneas's first sight of the Tiber River pouring into the sea "flavus multa arena": yellow with much sand, a stunning Virgilian image from book 7 that both authors would have worked on in their young school days. On the larger issue of imitation: isn't it a little parochial to get worked up about Shakespeare and Marlowe? Or did Shakespeare regard Marlowe as the English representative of all the classical and Renaissance poetry out there in languages other than English? Charles Ross Purdue Univ. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Bonahue Date: Monday, 8 Jul 1996 12:54:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe A few rejoinders to the conversation on Shakespeare and Marlowe. Most importantly, however, is the question of what we mean by "Marlowe." How comfortable are we, for example, with identifying a single Marlovian style? Obviously "Hero and Leander," TAMBURLAINE, and DR FAUSTUS demonstrate a certain range of style. Next, Tom Bishop's assertaion that Shakespeare's relation to Marlowe is "the only really important question of influence" simplifies, to me, the whole question of influence--what it is, how it works. For example, does it matter whether Shakespeare sat over a Marlowe play, worked through it, and sought to come to terms with it? Or can't influence also be more subtle, even unconscious--the product of barely remembered ideas and language? Certainly if the various avenues of cultural studies have taught us anything, they have taught us that "influence" is often an extremely subtle process. And finally, I think once the issue of what constitutes an instance of influence and what does not and what is somewhere in between is brought into play, then the generalizations of critics like Bloom, Garber, etc., while useful as generalizations, become cumbersome when we begin to discuss specific cases. Most of us are probably a lot more comfortable discussing, say, Pistol's cant as a humorous rehashing of Tamburlaine, or any number of heroic speeches as imitative of Marlowe's poetic style, than we are discussing Shakespeare and Marlowe in such broad terms. Right, well, I am:) Ed Bonahue University of Florida (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vincent J Mooney Jr. Date: Saturday, 06 Jul 1996 21:41:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0505 Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe [w/ Editor's Note] Tom Bishop wrote in part: snip snip ... Aside from the kooks who think (along with Woody Allen) that Shakespeare WAS Marlowe or Marlowe WAS Shakespeare, and that neither of them was trustworthy ... snip snip ... Bloom speaks repeatedly of Shakespeare's having "swallowed" Marlowe whole, like Jonah and the Whale (except for Barabas, whom he apparently couldnt digest). ... snip snip ... In the relations between "The Jew of Malta" and "The Merchant of Venice" can we trace a similar process? ... end of my selective snips. 1. The reasoning process is that Shakespeare was not the man from Stratford as based on the plays and sonnets and poems. Many people have come to this conclusion. 2. Another reasoned process of many is that Shakespeare was multiple authors as indicated by the plays and poems and sonnets and plays. 3. People in groups one and two look for evidence beyond the was Shakespeare a Lawyer issue and Was Shakespeare a Nobleman issue. They try to match a writer with the works. 4. One match is the evidence that Marlowe influenced Shakespeare and "The Jew of Malta" play is one such point. Not sufficient in my view, but I can see the reason why people elect to put this view out. Reference to such people as kooks does not help disspell the evidence that is offered. At the least, Shakespeare was a collective effort; at the most he was one man who "knew the times" (as do many playwrights today) and could pick from the works of others freely. I do not think that Marlowe was Shakespeare. Or Oxford. But I do think the issue of who this man was (does one accept that he was the Stratford man?) cannot be ignored. Perhaps this thread is not the place to look it over -- so much else worthwhile is available -- but the topic is not going away. Vincent J Mooney Jr. [Editor's Note: I must repeat discussions of authorship are no longer permitted on SHAKSPER. To those of us who make our livings studying and teaching these works, authorship simply is NOT an issue. As Russ McDonald puts it in *The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare*, "The strongest case against Oxford or Bacon or Marlowe or anyone, however, arises not from a barrage of negative arguments but rather from the positive evidence placing William Shakespeare of Stratford in London between 1592 and 1612, connecting him to the theatrical scene there (specifically his membership in the King's Men), and identifying him with the published texts that derived from public performances and that bear his name" (26). I would also like strongly to recommend again Dave Kathman's and Terry Ross's Shakespeare Authorship Web Page: Dedicated to the Proposition that Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare -- http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~tross/ws/will.html Kathman and Ross bring together an impressive array of materials organzied under the following: Introduction, Critically Examining Oxfordian Claims, The Spelling and Pronunciation of Shakespeare's Name, Dating *The Tempest*, Puttenham on Oxford, Shakespeare IN FACT, Funeral Elegy, Bardlinks Elsewhere on the Web. For anyone who may be interested I reproduce below their Introduction: >Many books and articles have been written arguing that someone other than >William Shakespeare, the glover's son from Stratford-upon-Avon, wrote the plays >and poems published under his name. There exist sincere and intelligent people >who believe there is strong evidence that Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of >Oxford, was the author of these plays and poems. Yet professional Shakespeare >scholars -- those whose job it is to study, write, and teach about Shakespeare >-- are unanimous in finding Oxfordian claims to be groundless, often not even >worth discussing. >Why is this? Oxfordians claim that these scholars are blinded to the evidence >by a vested self-interest in preserving the authorship of "the Stratford Man," >and some more extreme Oxfordians claim that there is an active conspiracy among >orthodox scholars to suppress pro-Oxford evidence and keep it from the >attention of the general public. The truth, however, is far more prosaic. >Oxfordians are not taken seriously by the Shakespeare establishment because >(with few exceptions) they do not follow basic standards of scholarship, and >the "evidence" they present for their fantastic scenarios is either distorted, >taken out of context, or flat-out false. >This web site is for the intelligent nonspecialist who doesn't know what to >make of these challenges to Shakespeare's authorship. Oxfordian books can be >deceptively convincing to a reader who is unaware of the relevant historical >background and unused to the rhetorical tricks used by Oxfordians. Our aim is >to provide context where needed, expose misinformation passed off by Oxfordians >as fact, and in general show the nonspecialist reader why professional >Shakespeare scholars have so little regard for Oxfordian claims. We know from >experience that we are not likely to convince any Oxfordians to change their >views, but we hope that other readers will find something of value here. We >will be updating and adding new material as time permits, and we welcome any >comments or suggestions. >Dave Kathman >Terry Ross] ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 21:58:02 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0508 Re: Audio; Acting Shakespeare; Emilia; Textual Criticism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0508. Monday, 8 July 1996. (1) From: Joanne Walen Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 1996 18:37:25 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0505 Re: Shakespeare on AUDIO (2) From: Milla Riggo Date: Sunday, 07 Jul 1996 13:58:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0506 Re: Acting Shakespeare (3) From: Susan Mather Date: Monday, 8 Jul 1996 00:58:42 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0502 Re: What Emilia Knew (4) From: David Evett Date: Monday, 08 Jul 1996 11:12 ET Subj: SHK 7.0504 Re: Textual Criticism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 1996 18:37:25 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0505 Re: Shakespeare on AUDIO The Writing Company Shakespeare Catalog offers both audio and video cassettes at reasonable prices. Their 1996 catalog lists the BBC Radio audio CDs and Caedmon audiocassettes for 13 plays. They also list several videocassettes, some as inexpensive as 14.95, and they have the entire BBC Shakespeare Series. To call for a catalog: 1-800421-4246. Films for the Humanities (1-800-257-5126) offers several viedocassettes not available through The Writing Company, e.g. Branagh's *Twelfth Night* and Trevor Nunn's *Othello*, with Ian McKellen.. Usually Films is more expensive, but not always. For example, the Trevor Nunn *Macbeth* is $89.95 from Films; $149 from Writing Company. The best bargain of the summer, however, was from the RSC gift shop in Stratford u Avon: the new RSC Great Performances tape (80 min., 4 plays from the 1994 season with excerpts and interviews) was L12.99 in NTSC version (about $20)--Films lists it for $159. Good hunting. Joanne Walen (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggo Date: Sunday, 07 Jul 1996 13:58:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0506 Re: Acting Shakespeare Dear Rick: About my "motivation" for paraphrasing Michael Kahn: I was motivated by nothing more profound than the fact that the exchange about Shylock called to mind Michael's Preface to the Teaching Shakespeare book, reminding me of how much I had liked the Preface as a way of getting AT the text of the play, rather than AROUND the text as the musings on Shylock's character seemed to me to be doing. In what was probably a lazy moment I chose to paraphrase Michael rather than to formulate my own ideas clearly, a careless choice as I have learned to my chagrin. I thank you for the courtesy of your last reply. And now I am going to follow Florence Amit to whatever safe haven she has found.... I'm glad the diversion is over. Milla R (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Monday, 8 Jul 1996 00:58:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0502 Re: What Emilia Knew To Sydney Kasten, You mentioned the Biblical Esther as having been married to Mordecai. Esther: 2: 7 says that "...Mordecai had taken her as his own daughter when her father and mother died." Are you thinking of Sarai whom Abraham tried to pass off as his sister to Pharaoh? Otherwise, a good analysis of Emilia! (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 08 Jul 1996 11:12 ET Subject: SHK 7.0504 Re: Textual Criticism More suggestions for Tunis Romein. I teach a graduate seminar in Shakespeare in which I concentrate on a single play, most commonly _Lear_, but in other years another text. The course project is a variorum edition of a passage of about 100 lines, either a single scene or a segment of a longer one. I pick out three or four of these, selected for their textual and critical interest, and then have the students work on them in groups of three or four, dividing up the problems and sharing the material they find: if I do some preliminary consulting with the group, I can usually find ways around the resistance that some of our students feel toward bibliographical scholarship. (That has become easier as more recent bibliography, with its orientation toward performance, has at least apparently enriched the critical yield.) The textual work dominates the first couple of weeks; we go back to those questions toward the end of the term, at a point where their far greater familiarity with other scholarship and criticism should have given them more confidence in making textual decisions before they turn in the final version. Bibliographically, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 06:58:52 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0509 Washington Shakespeare Company Training Session Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0509. Wednesday, 10 July 1996. From: Killa Burton Date: Monday, 8 Jul 1996 12:17:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Info on Washington Shakespeare Company Training Session WSC is beginning its seventh season in the DC metro area. Its outreach program, Bard On Wheels, is piloting a teen training program this summer, beginning next week. It runs for two weeks, and ends with a potluck picnic where the scenes and monologues the students have been working on are presented. Each day involves a scene study class and either a voice or an improv-for-context class is the mornings and guest artist workshops in the afternoons. The cost is $260/student. Classes are held at the WSC home at the Clark St Playhouse in Arlington from 9-3pm. The theatre is metro accessible. For information, call WSC at 703/418-4808 x6. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 07:04:57 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0510 Re: Acting Shakespeare; Textual Criticism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0510. Wednesday, 10 July 1996. (1) From: Louis Scheeder Date: Tuesday, 9 Jul 1996 00:39:24 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0508 Re: Acting Shakespeare (2) From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 9 Jul 1996 15:10:46 +1000 (EST) Subj: Re: Textual Criticism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Scheeder Date: Tuesday, 9 Jul 1996 00:39:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0508 Re: Acting Shakespeare Milla Riggio: Please do not *silence* or efface yourself. Trees can allow one to see the forest. "subtext' after all is a late-nineteenth century "invention" brought about by the repressive nature of the czarist state. louis scheeder (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 9 Jul 1996 15:10:46 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Kristian Schmidt's parallel texts of the F and Q1 _Richard III_ may be of interest to students wanting to compare different versions. The relationship between these two texts is often baffling, and raises interesting questions about how the texts came about which I have not seen adequately explained. I hope that students engaged in such an exercise would also look at some of the recent writing on the subject, especially Stephen Orgel's "What is a Text" and Random Cloud's "The very names of the persons" (both conveniently collected in Kastan and Stallybrass's _Staging the Renaissance_). Both these articles focus on the question of the underlying assumptions of editors and the aim of the editing process, questions which are sometimes overlooked or taken for granted, but which can throw up valuable insights when confronted. Adrian Kiernander Department of Theatre Studies University of New England ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 07:10:41 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0511 Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0511. Wednesday, 10 July 1996. From: Thomas Bishop Date: Tuesday, 9 Jul 1996 17:17:10 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0507 Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe Well, not only does that ball roll, it bounces! In some cases into the hazard. So here's an attempt at angling your various giraffes. Of course, I had no intention of neglecting or discouraging attention to other forms of intertextuality or source-study in asking questions about how Shakespeare might have read or felt or even acted his way through Marlowe. But we need to extend the same form of courtesy to this sort of enquiry as we do to others, within its and their limits. It's not really true that the critical profession gives more rewards to people who write on what Shakespeare did with Marlowe than on what he did with, say, obscure Latin primers or diaries by colonial adventurers or ponderous alchemical treatises (the answers will be found on page 34 of this reply). It is not, I think, even the case any more that a dull study on Shakespeare is more sure of reward than an epochal one on Burton or Amelia Lanyer or broadside ballads. And I think this is a good thing. (But that's another issue.) So yes, the use of commonplace-books may have made a difference to how writers went about composing and thought about their sources. G.K. Hunter argued as much many years ago in tracing what Seneca meant to the period. But did this practice have the same effect on the work of -all- writers? On a known commonplacer like Webster the same as on an iconoclast rebel like Marlowe? Is there only one model or practice of composition in any period? I beg leave to doubt. In order to understand the political history of the Elizabethan period, we need in fact to know quite a lot about the House of Lords, as well as about the Commons, and about people who never got near either. I would only make the same sort of plea for the study of sources, springs, influences, pre-texts and origins. There are many kinds of dialogue, too, to return to my own proposed figure, as anyone knows who's ever sat in a crowded cafe with half an ear open. Whether Greene's "Light in Troy" is an "adequate" account of "the real practices of reading and composition in early modern England" I do not know. Adequate to what? I'm not sure what such an account would look like. Probably like the Collected Works of Erasmus. That there is more to say than Greene says I would agree, but this is only to say that the matter is not closed. How could it be? Greene's is certainly an interesting, learned, detailed, careful, stylish, moving and, as far as I can see, in its own measure, true account of the matter. Can one fairly ask one writer for more? It also seems to me a little unfair to accuse Bloom of being "aristocratic" here, a term loaded with all kinds of political baggage that have little to do with his views, on poetry or politics. He claims no more than that his interest is in poets reading poets as poets. It doesnt make much sense therefore to object that poets also read other things. He has never denied that they do. But poets certainly do, will-they nill-they, find poetry in other poets. And most poets I know of find the experience of this poetry compelling in one way or another: Chaucer with Dante, Milton with Moses, Shelley with Aeschylus, Rich with HD. It -might- make sense to ask whether poets always find poetry -only- in other poets, and to this I would want to answer "no". But these things are very hard indeed to trace (Lowes did it with Coleridge, with wonderful results), and one is entitled to ask whether such appropriations aren't in fact conditioned by a precedent experience of poetry anyway. One -may-, of course, refuse to speak of "poetry" in this way at all, but then one has to engage with Dr. Bloom at a much deeper level than this. In something like these terms, I would be prepared to argue that Shakespeare responded to Marlowe. The "yellow sands" were something of a throwaway, though I would add that if Virgil was their remoter forebear, they get sea-changed in both latter poets by the association with lovers. As for whether asking about Shakespeare and Marlowe is parochial, again, it rather depends who draws (and beats) the parish bounds. I have no quarrel with asking about other writers, (allez-y, les gars!), yet it seems to me undeniable that Shakespeare knew Marlowe and was interested in his work, so I dont see why we shouldnt talk about it. SHAKSPER does sometimes get rather dull around this time of year. And no-one volunteered to join my heavy-metal band last year. Nor do I think there's a single Marlovian style. But I'll allow that Shakespeare had actually a better, or at least a fuller, idea of what "Marlowe" was in 1592 than I do, since he actually knew him, and I dont. And it didnt take cultural studies to teach me that influence is a subtle process, though if other people did learn that from it, I can only cheer. But perhaps I did overstate a little. Chalk it up as provocative rhetoric if you will. But as to making overgeneral claims: nothing would give me keener pleasure than a detailed working-through of some specific examples. (Well, almost nothing). And as for Vincent Mooney's comments.....I think I'll take up fishing. "Bait the hook well, this fish will bite" Tom Bishop Oh, and the answers are: T.W. Baldwin, Stephen Greenblatt, Frances Yates. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 07:14:07 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0512 South African Conference on Shakespeare and Postcoloniality Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0512. Wednesday, 10 July 1996. (1) From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Tuesday, 9 Jul 1996 07:46:13 -0400 Subj: South Africa (2) From: John Drakakis Date: Tuesday, 9 Jul 1996 12:17:00 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0508 Re: Acting Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Tuesday, 9 Jul 1996 07:46:13 -0400 Subject: South Africa SHAKSPEReans might wish to know that the conference SHAKESPEARE-POSTCOLONIALITY which took place in Johannesburg 30th June - 4th July was an enormous success. Martin Orkin, who organised it, deserved, and received, the applause of all participants. A sighting of 'Florence Amit' was reported, but this has not been confirmed. Terence Hawkes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Tuesday, 9 Jul 1996 12:17:00 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0508 Re: Acting Shakespeare Just a report: Florence Amit was sighted in Johannesburg last week. John Drakakis ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 07:25:24 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0513 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: FORD ELEGIES Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0513. Wednesday, 10 July 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, July 10, 1996 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: FORD ELEGIES As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve Patrick Gillespie's transcriptions of the following elegies by John Ford: "Fame's Memorial," "John Ford in commendation of his very good friend the Author," "On the Best of English Poets, Ben Jonson," and "A memorial offered to that man of virtue, Sir Thomas Overbury" (FORD ELEGIES) from the SHAKSPER Fileserver. To retrieve these elegies, send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET FORD ELEGIES". Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, please contact the editor at or . Below is a note from Patrick Gillespie regarding these elegies. ******************************************************************************* Hello all, First, none of these elegies submitted to the Shakespeare Listserv are formatted -- formatting not yet possible via E-Mail. If anyone wants formatted copies of these (line numbers & page numbers, rich text, as well as formatting) feel free to send me a note and I will forward an attachment to you. I offer the same for Dr. Doddypol, which I submitted to the Listserv in May?. The formatted copy comes with line numbers, italics, page numbers, etc.... I wanted to provide these elegies to all interested in lieu of our discussing the Funeral Elegy. When it was first brought to my attention that FE might be Ford's, I naturally wanted to compare Ford's known Elegies with FE. The longest of the Elegies is Fame's Memorial. It's clearly the work of a young mind trying to play too many notes. Yet, having become well acquainted with Ford after typing in Fame's Memorial, I was forcefully struck by the similarities between Fame's Memorial and FE. There is a similarity of conception, rhetorical design, imagery (its figurative paucity), and sentiment. Qualities which, unless I am mistaken, Shaxicon is of yet incapable of analyzing. The striking similarity in rhetorical construction is inescapable. For example: Consider the strikingly similar use of Synathrismos: FM By firm allegiance, courtesy, and kindness, Unto his prince, his peers, his friends endear'd; By stern constraint, meek scorn, and willing blindness, Of all his foes, backbiters, grudgers fear'd, He in his lifetime evermore appear'd; Peace, pity, love, with mildness, ease, and rest, Rul'd, forgave, joy'd his soul, his wrongs, his breast. FE Of true perfection, in a perfect breast; So that his mind and body made an inn, The one to lodge the other, both like framed For fair conditions, guests that soonest win Applause, in generality, well famed, If trim behavior, gestures mild, discreet Endeavors, modest speech, beseeming mirth, True friendship, active grace, persuasion sweet. Delightful love innated from his birth, Acquaintance unfamiliar, carriage just, Offenseless resolution, wished sobriety, Clean-tempered moderation, steady trust, Unburthened conscience, unfeigned piety... Consider not only the similarity in use but also that what the author chooses to praise is nearly identical in both. Can a similar parallel be found in Shakespeare's poetry? Ford, judging from FM, was especially, far above and beyond Shakespeare (in poetry especially), susceptible to figures of repetition. Consider especially such figures as Commutatio (Antimetabole), Anaclasis (Refractio), Palilogia (Heration). Anadiplosis (When the last word or phrase of one unit of speech is used at the beginning of the following unit of speech.) Anadiplosis is endemic to FM: ...She died ere rumor could that ease ralate; The news was happy, but for her too late. Too late for her, and for our lord too late... ...to new-mourn Achilles' loss! Our dear Achilles' loss... A similar *habit of thought* can be found in FE: 16 ...one truly good, by him. For he was truly good... 57 Did jointly both, in their peculiar graces, Enrich the curious temple of his mind; Indeed the temple, in whose precious white... 320 and he was friendhip's rock: A rock of friendship figured in his name... 410 In nothing surely propserous, but hope... And that same hope... Can similar examples be found in Shakespeare's poems? FM With pleasure to behold, beholding woo him Destruction to the stiff-necked revels stout - Stout in their headstrong miseries... A beauty fairly wise, wisely discreet.... A saint merely-divine, divinely sweet... ...a theme of wonder Wonder unto posterity succeeding... Be tyrants kings to such servility And peasants servile to such curs shame... FE His younger years gave comfortable hope To hope for comfort in his riper years Knowing the best, and therefore not presuming In knowing, but for that it was the best... Of true perfection, in perfect breast For private persons, in their private home... Now therein lived he happy, if to be Free from detraction happiness it be... He as in use most fast, in tongue most plain Consider the following parallels (both word usage and sentiment): FE That lives encompassed in a mortal frame, Sometime in reputation not oppressed By some in nothing famous but defame. FM Once dead and twice alive; Death could not frame A death whose sting would kill him in his fame... Be tyrants kings to such servility, And peasants servile to such curs of shame; Devonshire, the issue of nobility, Avoided rumor of such foul defame; FE (Notice in the following again the word clusters... (endeavor with virtue) Notice how the "never- blemished" conclusion of thought in FE is paralleled identically by both concluding couplets from FM. The progression of thought is identical in both.) Whiles both his youth and virtue did intend The good endeavors of deserving praise, What memorable monument can last Whereon to build his never-blemished name But his own worth, wherein his life was graced... True virtue grac'd his mind; be witness ever The provident forecare of wise discretion; His wary prudence, which did still endeavor To hold him from the wreck of spite's impression; >From faith approv'd he never made digression: That is true prudence, when, devoid of fear, A man untouch'd himself upright doth bear. True virtue grac'd his mind; in which was grounded The modest essence of firm temperance, Which never was with fortune's change confounded, Of troubled with the cross of fickle chance; Distrust his spirit never could enhance: That man is perfect-temperate whose life Can never be disturb'd, but free from strife. Consider the striking emphasis on education *in all* of Ford's known elegies! But, to go section by section, consider the following parallels in sentiment: FE Oblivion in the darkest day to come, When sin shall tread on merit in the dust, Cannot raise out the lamentable tomb Of his short-lived deserts; but still they must, Even in the hearts and memories of men, Claim fit respect, that they, in every limb Remembering what he was, with comfort then May pattern out one truly good, by him. FM Swift Time, the speedy persuivant of heaven, Summons to glorious virtues canonis'd, The lasting volume where worth roves uneven, In brazen characters immortalis'd; Where merit lives embrac'd, base scorn despis'd: Link'd to untainted truth, sprung from the same, Begets his eagle-towering daughter Fame.... Lo, here the pith of valor molded fast In curious workmanship of Nature's art: Lo, here the monuments which ever last To all succeeding ages of desert, Noble in all, and all in every part: Records of fame and characters of brass, Containing acts, such acts conceit do pass. FE Nor can the tongue of him who loved him least (If there can be minority of love To one superlative above the rest Of many men in steady faith) reprove His constant temper, in the equal weight Of thankfulness and kindness: Truth doth leave Sufficient proof, he was in every right As kind to give, as thankful to receive. FM Thy labors of endeavors; what was his He granted to thy Muse's happiest bliss: A liberal Mecaenas to reward thee, A lord of special favor to regard thee. By firm allegiance, courtesy, and kindness, Unto his prince, his peers, his friends endear'd; By stern constraint, meek scorn, and willing blindness, Of all his foes, backbiters, grudgers fear'd, He in his lifetime evermore appear'd; Peace, pity, love, with mildness, ease, and rest, Rul'd, forgave, joy'd his soul, his wrongs, his breast. FE Not that he was above the spleenful sense And spite of malice, but for that he had Warrant enough in his own innocence Against the sting of some in nature bad. Yet who is he so absolutely blest That lives encompassed in a mortal frame, Sometime in reputation not oppressed By some in nothing famous but defame? FM But, ah, be still thyself; let not defame Of the rude chaos aggravate thy woes; The multitude's blind slander is no shame; Rusticity his joy by malice knows, The better best in judging better shows: Let gross uncivil hinds regardless sleep; Go, weak betrayers of your witless madness, Your malice will revert upon you breasts; Not looks of graver niceness, nicer sadness, Can shadow imputations of unrests, His greater spirit at your fondness jests: FE His younger years gave comfortable hope To hope for comfort in his *riper* youth, Which, harvest-like, did yield again the crop Of education, bettered in his truth. Those noble twins of heaven-infused races, Learning and wit, refined in their kind Did jointly both, in their peculiar graces, Enrich the curious temple of his mind; FM When first his birth produc'd this prime of hope, Am imp of promise mild proclivity, Gracious aspects even in his horoscope Predominated his nativity, Allotting in his arm nobility; That, being nobly born, he might persevere, Enthron'd by fame, nobilitated ever. Now when his infant years wax'd mellow *ripe*, Balanc'd in pity scales of youth's discretion, As past the childish fear, fear of a stripe, Or schools' correct with deeper grave impression, He scorn'd the mimic thoughts of base condition, By earnest documents foreshowing wholly His just contempt of unregarded folly. For, having suck'd the rudiments of learning, Grammar's elixer-juice and quintessence, He soon approv'd his judgment by discerning, Applying with industrious diligence To follow studies of more consequence; Then, by a syllogistic kind of war, He ruminates on thoughts which nobler are. [Notice the similar imagery...] FE Indeed a temple, in whose precious white Sat reason by religion overswayed, Teaching his other senses, with delight, How piety and zeal should be obeyed. Not fruitlessly in prodigal expense Wasting his best of time, but so content With reason's golden mean to make defense Against the assault of youth's encouragement; As not the tide of this surrounding age (When now his father's death had freed his will) Could make him subject to the drunken rage Of such whose only glory is their ill. He from the happy knowledge of the wise Draws virtue to reprove secured fools And shuns the glad sleights of ensnaring vice To spend his spring of days in sacred schools. FM True virtue grac'd his mind; be witness ever The provident forecare of wise discretion; His wary prudence, which did still endeavor To hold him from the wreck of spite's impression; >From faith approv'd he never made digression: That is true prudence, when, devoid of fear, A man untouch'd himself upright doth bear. True virtue grac'd his mind; in which was grounded The modest essence of firm temperance, Which never was with fortune's change confounded, Of troubled with the cross of fickle chance; Distrust his spirit never could enhance: That man is perfect-temperate whose life Can never be disturb'd, but free from strife. [Notice in both how the author progresses from religion to temperence... note the striking similarity...] FE But that I not intend in full discourse To progress out his life, I could display A good man in each part exact and force The common voice to warrant what I say. For if his fate and heaven had decreed That full of days he might have lived to see The grave in peace, the times that should succeed Had been best-speaking witnesses with me; Whose conversation so untouched did move Respect most in itself, as who would scan His honesty and worth, by them might prove He was a kind, true, perfect gentleman. FM [Notice the similar progression of the two elegies... in FE the author has not the time to indulge in the story, in FM, however, he does and does so...] To gratify the frontiers of her brows With as much pleasure as content allows: Thou, Lady, on my lines cast favor's glory, While I inscribe great Mountjoy's Irish story. FE He was a kind, true, perfect gentleman. Not in the outside of disgraceful folly, Courting opinion with unfit disguise, Affecting fashions, nor addicted wholly To unbeseeming blushless vanities, But suiting so his habit and desire FM No, his deep-reaching spirit could not brook The fond addiction to such vanity; Regardful of his honor he forsook The smicker use of court-humanity, Of rural clownage or urbanity; He lov'd the worthy, and endeavoring prov'd How of the worthy he might be belov'd. ...Double tongue-oiled courtiers, whose neat phrases Do model forth your wits' maturity In honey'd speeches and sick-thoughted graces, Cloaking your souls in sin's obscurity, Yet fan your lightness in security, Weep on his reverend corse; for such as he Now is, not as he was, yourselves shall be. [Notice the identical attitude praised in each of the deceased and the identical sentiment of the author toward the "court"... although this was a commonplace in poetry of the time, note that both elegies progress in a nearly parallel manner.] Well, I could go on like this through the entire FE and still not make any more forceful (than they already are) the parallels between the two. Again, these are not parallels which Shaxicon can consider, and so common judgment must be used. It seems there are simply too many parallels in word cluster, progression of ideas, sentiment, syntax, rhetoric, image to ignore Ford. I am a writer however, not a Shakespeare scholar, and so I leave it to more dedicated minds than my own to either dismiss Ford or more precisely confirm him as the author of FE. Yours, Patrick Gillespie ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 10:03:48 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0514 Re: Emilia and Esther Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0514. Saturday, 13 July 1996. From: Sydney Kasten Date: Wednesday, 10 Jul 1996 13:47:51 +0200 (IST) Subject: Emilia and Esther To Susan Mather, Thanks for your kind comments, which invite an amplification. The name "Esther" bears in ýHebrew the the meaning "secret" or "hidden". The scholars of the Babylonian Talmud devoted a major portion of the tractate dealing with the Festival of Purim to a discussion of the Book of Esther, on which the festival is based, and named the tractate "Megilla" (Scroll), rather than the more logical "Purim". Among the factors that are not explicitly stated in the book is the very Presence of God, Whose Name is not mentioned once. The framers of the Talmud went to great lengths in examining the "subtext" to justify including in the Canon this adventure story, whose very premise, the methodical, worldwide destruction of a whole race, was unbelievable until the twentieth century, and to flesh out the thin framework of the story with the stuff of human emotion. On page 13a of Tractate Megilla Rabbi Meir is quoted as commenting on the verse you mentioned thus: "Don't read "daughter" (Hebrew 'bat'), read "house" (Hebrew 'bayit')". The word bayit is a well known metaphor for the wife in Jewish tradition (hearth?). Later on, in chapter 4 of the Book of Esther, Mordechai instructs Esther to approach the King to revoke the edict against the Jews. She responds that the King hasn't summoned her in a month, and that to approach him without being summoned makes one liable to the punishment of death. On page 15a of the Tractate the latent meaning is made explicit. Having been forcibly recruited to the harem and summoned to the King's bed by imperial demand, her prior marriage to Mordechai was not affected. However, by approaching the King of her own volition she would be committing adultery (and worse! Remember, the King was a gentile.) She finishes verse 16 of Ch. 4 with the statement "I will go in into the King, which is not according to the Law, and if I perish, I perish." The Law she refers to is not that of Imperial Persia, but that of the Jews. The Talmud reads the meaning of the words literally: "as I have been lost, I have been lost - as I have been lost to my father's people (by the recruitment to the harem), so I will be lost (to you Mordechai, by this volitional act). Could Emilia have been aware of all this? Well, the Talmud had been set down in writing hundreds of years before the heyday of Venice, and was certainly widely available in England before the expulsion of the Jews by Edward I. There wasn't too much around to read other than the Bible, and it seems reasonable to expect that all literate Christians and many of the illiterate knew the Bible stories and the stories around the stories, as well as they did the variations on the indigenous mythologies. This is not to make a claim that Shakespeare used the Book of Esther as the framework for Othello. But I must say that I was struck with the many congruencies: the embodiment of evil in Iago and in Haman, the gullibility of Othello and of Ahasuerus, the theme of intermarriage, the consignment to the depths and later elevation of Cassio and the Jewish people, the plea by a spotless consort. Why, Haman even had a straight talking wife who initially seemed to back him up but eventually was able to tell him that his sun had set. These and other elements, permutted and inverted might justify a "compare and contrast" essay. This might be one of the reasons that my thoughts took this direction, when looking to embody Emilia's thoughts. As for Sarai and Abram, as much as I revere my Hallowed Ancestors, I am not sure that the events related from Genesis fall into Emilia's parameters, although I must admit that an explicitly stated situation has some advantage over a derived one. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 10:09:50 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0515 Re: Textual Criticism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0515. Saturday, 13 July 1996. From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Thursday, 11 Jul 96 16:25:16 EDT Subject: Re: Textual Criticism For Tunis Romein: A delightful "3-way" scene might be the exchange between Claudius and Laertes up to the first lines of Gertrude's report of Ophelia drowning. Another might be the dialogue between Hamlet and Horatio leading up to the entry of the court for the climactic swordplay. I've printed facsimiles of juicy chunks in "'Well-sayd olde Mole': Burying Three _Hamlet_s in Modern Editions," in Georgianna Ziegler, ed., SHAKESPEARE STUDY TODAY (New York, AMS, 1986), 37-70. But you might rather use full-page copies instead. If anyone wants 'em, I have some parallel text handouts for Lear, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, and everyone's FAVORITES, Henry VI two and three. I'm alwys glad to circulate them as widely as possible. Were I a master of technology, these images would live in the web. Alas, my way of constructing a web site is to invite arachnidae into dark corners. Ever, Steven Dances-with-Spiderswitz City College of New York ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 10:18:45 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0516 Qs: Richard of Bordeaux; Funeral Elegy in Complete Works Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0516. Saturday, 13 July 1996. (1) From: Juliet A. Youngren Date: Friday, 12 Jul 1996 17:23:32 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Richard of Bordeaux (2) From: Richard J. Kennedy Date: Thursday, 11 Jul 1996 17:22:06 -0700 Subj: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juliet A. Youngren Date: Friday, 12 Jul 1996 17:23:32 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Richard of Bordeaux Would you be willing to post the following message from a non-member to the list? He is interested in joining, but I seem to have mislaid the subscription address, and time is somewhat of the essence for his project. Thank you!! J.A.Y. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andy White Greetings: I am an MA/Ph.D. candidate in Theatre History at the University of Illinois, and am in the final stages of a research project on Sir John Gielgud's repertory season at the Queen's Theatre, 1937-1938. The design team he worked with was a trio of women called Motley, and their work in particular is what I hope to focus on. The first production that season was "Richard II", and from what I have read the critical reaction was negative. They loved Gielgud, but Motley's work was panned for being too elaborate and ornate. It's my contention that it was primarily because Gielgud had already starred in a long-running historical play, "Richard of Bordeaux" by a woman who wrote under the pseudonym Mackintosh (I can supply the full name later -- my papers aren't here right now). Both the design and script were very different, and (in my opinion) unfortunately overshadowed the Bard's own work. "Richard of Bordeaux" is a hard play to find, and I was hoping someone on this list could get me in touch with a library or private collection (even a book store?) that has a copy of the script. What's interesting about "Bordeaux" is that it was inspired by Gielgud's first "Richard II" at the Old Vic, and was apparently very different in mood from Shakespeare's drama. Because Gielgud was so famous for his romantic, musical qualities, "Bordeaux" was written to showcase these aspects of Gielgud's acting. That, plus apparently there were some pacifist overtones in the script which, written during the rise of fascism and nazism on the continent, must have been very reassuring to London audiences. If anyone on this list can help me to a script, or has more information on "Bordeaux", it would be greatly appreciated. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J. Kennedy Date: Thursday, 11 Jul 1996 17:22:06 -0700 Subject: Funeral Elegy Is it allowed for one to know more of the publication of the Funeral Elegy in the "Works" of Shakespeare. Don Foster said that it would be included in the Norton edition, and there was mention that Harper Collins would do the same for the poem. Is it true? Harper Collins seems to know nothing of such a plan, and is it the same for Norton, merely the hope of Foster? Perhaps he could name the editors who are involved in this publication if it is not a phantom. May we know their names? An editor would be honored to be part of a brand new publication of a brand new poem by Shakespeare, and should be happy to have their names known. Thank you.========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 07:43:21 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0517 Re: Richard of Bordeaux Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0517. Monday, 15 July 1996. (1) From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Saturday, 13 Jul 96 15:53:00 PDT Subj: Richard of Bordeaux (2) From: Laura Blanchard Date: Sunday, 14 Jul 1996 15:04:20 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0516 Qs: Richard of Bordeaux (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Saturday, 13 Jul 96 15:53:00 PDT Subject: Richard of Bordeaux This is in reply to Andy White's query about the play RICHARD OF BORDEAUX. The real name of the author was Elizabeth Mackintosh (1896-1952), who wrote under the pseudonym of Gordon Daviot. The play was published as French's Acting Edition No. 1942 (1935) and is available at various libraries, including the U of Penna., U of Minn., U of Mich., and Columbia. It should be available through Inter-Library Loan. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Blanchard Date: Sunday, 14 Jul 1996 15:04:20 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0516 Qs: Richard of Bordeaux Richard of Bordeaux was written by Elizabeth Mackintosh under the nom de plume of Gordon Daviot. She may be familiar to other SHAKSPEReans under her other nom de plume of Josephine Tey, under which she wrote several very successful detective novels, including The Daughter of Time, which revisits the controversy of Richard III and his reputation. If memory serves, Gielgud had a great success in the stage version of Richard of Bordeaux in 1937. I believe that all of Daviot's plays were published in one collection in the 1950s. She herself died in 1951 or -52. Best regards, Laura Blanchard lblanchard@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 07:47:26 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0518 Re: Funeral Elegy in Complete Works Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0518. Monday, 15 July 1996. (1) From: Milla Riggio Date: Saturday, 13 Jul 1996 20:50:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0516 Q: Funeral Elegy in Complete Works (2) From: David J. Kathman Date: Sunday, 14 Jul 1996 01:01:54 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0516 Q: Funeral Elegy in Complete Works (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Saturday, 13 Jul 1996 20:50:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0516 Q: Funeral Elegy in Complete Works About the funeral elegy: David Bevington has been editing this poem for inclusion in his HarperCollins edition of Shakespeare. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David J. Kathman Date: Sunday, 14 Jul 1996 01:01:54 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0516 Q: Funeral Elegy in Complete Works Richard Kennedy wrote: >Is it allowed for one to know more of the publication of the Funeral Elegy in >the "Works" of Shakespeare. Don Foster said that it would be included in the >Norton edition, and there was mention that Harper Collins would do the same for >the poem. Is it true? Harper Collins seems to know nothing of such a plan, and >is it the same for Norton, merely the hope of Foster? Perhaps he could name >the editors who are involved in this publication if it is not a phantom. May we >know their names? An editor would be honored to be part of a brand new >publication of a brand new poem by Shakespeare, and should be happy to have >their names known. Thank you. David Bevington is including the Funeral Elegy in the next edition of his one-volume Shakespeare, published by Houghton Mifflin. He completed the annotations and introduction several months ago, but I don't believe the volume is due to come out until next year at least. I understand that Stephen Greenblatt, who is editing the new Norton edition of Shakespeare (based on the Oxford edition) is also planning to include the Elegy. I don't know about Harper Collins. I seem to remember hearing about another forthcoming edition that will include the Elegy, but I can't remember what it was. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 07:49:39 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0519 Re: Emilia and Esther Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0519. Monday, 15 July 1996. From: Susan Mather Date: Sunday, 14 Jul 1996 00:38:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0514 Re: Emilia and Esther In response, S. Kasten, I can only say that in my Bible it says in Esther 4: 16: I will go to the King even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish." It is a bold act to go before the king unsummoned. I think it refers back to Vashti in chapter 1...the whole need for Esther. I never read that she was going to have sexual relations with the king, but rather, more boldly, she was going before him without being summoned which could mean death. Because she is well favoured though, her plea is listened to and she persevered which is why she is well-noted among Christian women. But...I do only rely on the Word. Thanks for getting me back into this Book by the way... Susan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 07:30:46 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0520 Re: Funeral Elegy in Complete Works Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0520. Tuesday, 15 July 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 15 Jul 1996 14:49:18 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0518 Re: Funeral Elegy in Complete Works (2) From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Monday, 15 Jul 1996 10:47:25 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0518 Re: Funeral Elegy in Complete Works (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 15 Jul 1996 14:49:18 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0518 Re: Funeral Elegy in Complete Works Is Dave Kathman correct? I thought that HarperCollins was Bevington's publisher and that they are claiming that the new edition will be out soon. A Hougton Mifflin representative told me that they are bringing out a new edition of the Riverside, ed. Gwyn Evans. I have heard that Evans accepts Don's arguments, but will he include it in his new edition? I don't know. But isn't it fun to speculate? Yours, Bill Godshalk (home from the Poconos) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Monday, 15 Jul 1996 10:47:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0518 Re: Funeral Elegy in Complete Works Sorry -- when I wrote that David Bevington's Shakespeare is published by Houghton Mifflin, I meant to say HarperCollins. Milla Riggio had it right. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 07:39:51 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0521 SHAKSPER Hiatus Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0521. Tuesday, 15 July 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, July 15, 1996 Subject: SHAKSPER Hiatus Dear SHAKSPEReans, Tomorrow, I leave on the first leg of my summer vacation: the beach. We'll return for the weekend and then leave again Monday for our second annual Harrisonburg vacation with the Shenandoah Shakespeare Express. SHAKSPER mailings will, therefore, be irregular over the next two weeks with no mailing between July 22 and 28.========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 07:06:37 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0522 Re: Funeral Elegy in Complete Works Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0522. Wednesday, 31 July 1996. (1) From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 16 Jul 1996 08:38:52 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0520 Re: Funeral Elegy in Complete Works (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 16 Jul 1996 14:31:34 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0520 Re: Funeral Elegy in Complete Works (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 16 Jul 1996 08:38:52 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0520 Re: Funeral Elegy in Complete Works Naturally I am very pleased that the "Elegie" has found its sometimes thumping, usually fluid and amazingly personal way into the Complete Works. As I have said before, when Paul Hawkins and I began the process of recording our Concordia CD of the poem, we constantly discovered great beauties of phrase and rhythm that come to the lips -- their intended recipients, surely -- with novelty and ease. Neither of us liked the poem on the first two quiet readings, of course; I don't imagine anyone does, it *seems* so plain, even perhaps less than ordinary. It seems to us that quite a lot of this is precisely what the pet sets out to do, to praise from his place as a living ordinary man and friend. The poem is evidently, I would say, pretty anti-clerical and makes totally clear at the end that Peter is not in heaven but in the dusty ground and lives only in the memory of love. A common Marlovian and Shakespearean position indeed, and not a wholly unusual one for artists of the time to take. I continue to thank those who have sent me notes telling me how much the recording has opened their ears to the work, whoever wrote it. Harry Hill Montreal (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 16 Jul 1996 14:31:34 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0520 Re: Funeral Elegy in Complete Works Doug Bruster gently points out to me (offline) that I have misspelled Gwynne Evans's name. I suppose I should stick to G. Blakemore Evans! My apologies to Evans. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 07:30:58 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0524 Lori Berenson Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0524. Wednesday, 31 July 1996. From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Wednesday, 17 Jul 1996 16:06:47 -0400 Subject: Lori Berenson Dear Friends, I am taking the liberty of asking you for your urgent help now for Lori Berenson. You'll recall that Lori, a New York woman, the twenty-six-year-old daughter of a colleague, was found guilty of treason and sentenced to life in prison in Peru. A moment for action has now arrived. She did not receive a fair trial, having no opportunity to defend herself or to disprove the allegations against her, which keep shifting. Two letters are now circulating in Congress, one by Congresswoman Molinari and the other by Senator Moynihan. The goal is to get as many signatures as possible on these letters, addressed to Peru's President Fujimori and urging him to see to it that Lori has a trial in a civilian, open court. Please call your congressman and senator and urge them to sign the letters. Congress will adjourn in a little more than a week. The letters must be signed before that time, or this window of opportunity will close. Lori is now existing in harsh conditions, at high altitudes, with no running water or heat in Yanamayo Prision, Puno, Peru. She is eager to hear from the world but can only receive and send letters in Spanish. If you would like more information, please contact me. Thank you very much for your help with this matter. Bernice ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 07:20:28 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0523 Re: Thanks; Fin de siecle; Textual Criticism; Johannesburg Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0523. Wednesday, 31 July 1996. (1) From: Andy White Date: Wednesday, 17 Jul 1996 00:29:36 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Thanks to SHAKSPER! (2) From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Wednesday, 17 Jul 1996 08:30:43 -0400 Subj: Re: Fin de siecle texts (3) From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 18 Jul 1996 23:18:40 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0515 Re: Textual Criticism (4) From: Charles Whitney Date: Sunday, 21 Jul 1996 11:40:35 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Johannesburg '96 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andy White Date: Wednesday, 17 Jul 1996 00:29:36 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Thanks to SHAKSPER! I wanted to thank all of you again who responded to my inquiry on Richard of Bordeaux. My apologies for botching the name -- of course it was Elizabeth Mackintosh, writing under the name of Gordon Daviot. Once I am successfully subscribed to your list, I look forward to sharing some of my research, as well as some related ideas I recently developed during a production of Hamlet, which I transposed into a more modern idiom (selectively, mind you -- none of this 'I can write better than the Bard' nonsense, I just tweaked it a bit) ... but more than that, I look forward to seeing what all of you have been up to! Cheers, Andy White (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Wednesday, 17 Jul 1996 08:30:43 -0400 Subject: Re: Fin de siecle texts Genevieve Guenther asks what texts from the 1590s and 1600s have to do with the turn of our century, and in the interests of clarification . . . The director of our honors program has solicited course proposals in recognition of our upcoming turn of the century. The request prompted me to think about the turn of the century at the center of the period that interests me, and so I am working on putting a course together. BTW, I have received several intriguing suggestions/recommendations. My plan is to compile them and send a list to SHAKSPER for your information and further commentary. Thanks to all who have responded. --Chris Fassler (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 18 Jul 1996 23:18:40 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0515 Re: Textual Criticism Steve Urkowitz writes: "If anyone wants 'em, I have some parallel text handouts for Lear, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, and everyone's FAVORITES, Henry VI two and three. " Hey, watch it: Henry VI, part 3, *was* a favorite of my company! We liked playing with the blood bags. And Margaret was too much fun to resist. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Whitney Date: Sunday, 21 Jul 1996 11:40:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Johannesburg '96 I second the praises of Martin Orkin for organizing the wonderful conference on Shakespeare and Postcoloniality in Johannesburg. Accompanying our work was the felt awareness that this crucial time and place in contemporary history concentrates the aspirations and anxieties of much of the world. The intensity of the conference, the global diversity of the participants, the different personal meanings the conference held for us, the challenges and clarifications it offered concerning professional identity, purpose, and strategy, and the opportunities Martin provided for exchange and insight, made it for many of us a series of extraordinary events that cannot be assimilated and articulated in a short period of time. Thanks again Martin and all involved. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 07:39:32 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0525 Qs: Goethe's *Faust*; Shakespeare Jokes Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0525. Wednesday, 31 July 1996. (1) From: Anne-Mirjam Maczewski Date: Friday, 19 Jul 96 10:49:45 +0200 Subj: Q: Shakespearean material in Goethe's _Faust_ (2) From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Monday, 29 Jul 1996 14:51:12 -0400 Subj: Shakespeare jokes (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anne-Mirjam Maczewski Date: Friday, 19 Jul 96 10:49:45 +0200 Subject: Q: Shakespearean material in Goethe's _Faust_ Dear list members, I am currently investigating the intertextual relations between Goethe's _Faust I_ and Shakespeare's _Midsummernight's Dream_ and _Tempest_ that Goethe establishes by having Oberon, Titania and Ariel appear in _Faust_'s Walpurgisnight's Dream scene. The amount of secondary literature I have been able to track down for these purposes has been extremely scarce--do some of you perhaps know of publications concerned with this relationship? Thank you in advance for your help! Yours, Anne-Mirjam Maczewski (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Monday, 29 Jul 1996 14:51:12 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare jokes Friends, A former student of mine is currently working as scriptwriter on *Pearl*, a new tv sitcom (to be aired on Wednesday nights this fall on CBS), featuring a working-class adult going to college (Rhea Perlman) and her relationship with other conventional students and with her pompous professor (Malcolm McDowell)--sort of Educating Rita meets The Paper Chase. While preparing a proposed episode featuring some lectures on Shakespeare, my student called me for some Standard Shakespeare Jokes, at least ones that can be dumbed down enough to be comprehensible to a national middle-brow tv audience. I gave him the standard "Did Hamlet sleep with Ophelia" one. Does anyone have any others? If so, do send them on to me (cmazer@english.upenn.edu) or to my former student, Joshua Goldsmith (joshwhite1@aol.com) privately, so as not to clog up the listserv. Thanks, Cary ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 07:42:37 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0526 New PLS Production Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0526. Wednesday, 31 July 1996. From: Helen Ostovich Date: Monday, 29 Jul 1996 14:34:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: New PLS Production [Originally posted on REED-L.] Of interest to people in the Toronto area: An announcement for those REED-L'ers within striking distance of Toronto: The PLS are presenting John Heywood's _John John: A Merry Play_ at the Tarragon Theatre's Extra Space, 30 Bridgman Ave, Toronto, on 15 August 6.30pm 16 August 9.30pm 17 August 1.00pm 18 August 2.30pm 23 August 8.00pm Directed by Linda Phillips; FIght Direction by Daniel Linson; Performed by Ruth Barrett, Erik Buchanan, and Chet Scoville Records of Early English Drama/ Victoria College/ 150 Charles Street W Toronto Ontario Canada Phone (416) 585-4504/FAX (416) 585-4594/reed@chass.utoronto.ca http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~reed/reed.html => REED's home page http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~reed/reed-l.html => REED-L's home page ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 07:49:34 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0527 SHAKSPER's Back Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0527. Wednesday, 31 July 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, July 31, 1996 Subject: SHAKSPER's Back Dear SHAKSPEReans: I am back from my restful vacation and will post some observations of the plays I saw the Shenandoah Shakespeare Express perform at Harrisonburg in a few days. When I returned, I found that the machine on which LISTSERV resides had been turned off. Thus, requests sent to LISTSERV were rejected for the past week. I have cleared out my mailbox of posting, so if you have a posting that you could not get through or that got lost please resubmit.========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 09:51:03 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0528 Q: Macbeth parody Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0587. Thursday, 1 August 1996. From: Rod Osiowy Date: Wednesday, 31 Jul 1996 08:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0522 Re: Macbeth parody In the world of scripts there is a parody on Macbeth which I am currently searching for. It is a production that starts with an adjudicator introducing the play in a fictional festival and every theatre cliche' is used in his opening remarks. The 3 witches follow wearing pointy hats and the set is backwards behind them. I do not know the title of this play and would like to find where its source. Is anyone familiar with it? Is it worth producing? Thank you for your assistance with this. Rod Osiowy Rosiowy@cln.etc.bc.ca ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 09:53:24 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0588 Chandos Portrait Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0588. Thursday, 1 August 1996. From: John Cox Date: Wednesday, 31 Jul 1996 09:14:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Chandos Portrait I've been away from SHAKSPER for a couple of months, so I don't know if anyone has mentioned the article on the Chandos portrait of Shakespeare in the May 24 TLS. Darren Emerson Lay, an actor and director, has discovered a John Taylor (to whom the portrait is ascribed) among Paul's Boys in the late sixteenth century. Lay describes a plausible scenario by which the Paul's Taylor could have painted the portrait in 1600-1604. If Lay is right, then the Chandos becomes the earliest and most authoritative portrait of Shakespeare. Any comments? John Cox Hope College ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 09:59:15 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0589 Re: Archived *Dr. Dodypoll*; Funeral Elegy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0589. Thursday, 1 August 1996. (1) From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, August 1, 1996 Subj: Archived *Dr. Dodypoll* (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 31 Jul 1996 19:41:32 -0700 Subj: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, August 1, 1996 Subject: Archived *Dr. Dodypoll* It has been brought to my attention that the transcript of *Dr. Dodypoll* on the SHAKSPER Fileserver contains thirteen extraneous lines. I have deleted these lines from that version. If you have already gotten a copy from the archives and would like it to be accurate, delete the thirteen lines following Katherine's "I warrant you my Lord the Duke dissembles." These line begin with "It is not love . . ." and end with ". . . may never do." (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 31 Jul 1996 19:41:32 -0700 Subject: Funeral Elegy Not at all to slight Harry Hill, his ability to read and attempt to glean some sense out of the more strangled lines of the Funeral Elegy, and I love a fine voice and a grand style, and all credit to Harry for his work with this most common piece of verse. (for this ad I should receive a free cd, yes?) Nothing hostile there, but Lord how can a man keep his systalic down when the Shakespeare teachers and professors on the planet say nothing and let this spectacular failure be lent this while as if Shakespeare wrote it? Every publisher who puts this thing in the works whould be given strong objections, and you have the addresses. If you don't, I do, and how can you let this go by? Where is conscience after so much mute acceptance? Where is poetry? Read the Funeral Elegy out of our archives. Lord, it was more sad than anyone could have conceived, such a death upon academia and our good sense and proper ears. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:10:34 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0590 Re: Chandos Portrait; Funeral Elegy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0590. Thursday, 2 August 1996. (1) From: Roy Flannagan Date: Thursday, 01 Aug 1996 11:49:36 -0400 (EDT) Subj: RE: SHK 7.0588 Chandos Portrait (2) From: Bob Evans Date: Thursday, 1 Aug 1996 12:35:24 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roy Flannagan Date: Thursday, 01 Aug 1996 11:49:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RE: SHK 7.0588 Chandos Portrait About the Chandos portrait: Is that John Taylor of St. Paul's School? What evidence has been adduced that Taylor painted the portrait? Curious for about three reasons. Best, Roy Flannagan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Evans Date: Thursday, 1 Aug 1996 12:35:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Funeral Elegy Am I correct in remembering that Don Foster, using his computer program, was quoted on SHAKSPER as determining that Joe Klein was the author of _Primary Colors_? Has there been any comment on SHAKSPER since this analysis was subsequently confirmed by Klein's confession? Does this news affect anyone's position in the debate? Just curious. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 14:08:08 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0591 Q: Whole Text on CD-ROM Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0591. Thursday, 2 August 1996. From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Thursday, 01 Aug 96 13:29:00 PDT Subject: Whole Text on CD-ROM From time-to-time we've all discussed various Shakespeare texts available in electronic form. I now have a person who wants a complete text on CD-ROM for Windows. Does anyone know of such a product? I've referred him to the standard Riverside and Oxford CD editions, but he's now investigated both and finds that neither is yet available for Windows. There are, of course, other products out there, such as the new Cambridge Shakespeare for CD and the new Arden edition, but neither of these is yet complete, and I suspect their pricing is more geared towards libraries than individuals. So, to all SHAKSPERIANS - does anyone have anything else to recommend that would fit the bill? Suggestions much appreciated, and thanks to all in advance! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 14:12:48 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0592 Ods Bodkins Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0592. Thursday, 2 August 1996. From: Jacob Goldberg Date: Friday, 2 Aug 1996 00:13:17 -0400 Subject: Ods Bodkins! I received the following notices from a member of a horn group, who also has a strong interest in Gilbert and Sullivan and thought it might be interesting to SHAKSPEReans. Jacob Goldberg (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DScottHyde@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Ods Bodkins A while back, somebody wanted to know what Ods Bodkins, as it appears in Yeomen of the Guard, means. I finally heard from my Shakespeare expert, who writes: Ods Bodkins (or Bodykins) -- Od is an abbreviation of God ('od), and a bodkin is a sharp instrument used for piercing, like a dagger. So literally, it's "God's daggers." (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Durrie To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Ods Bodkins I'll have to disagree with your expert on this. My understanding is that Od's Bodkins (or, more properly, bodykins) is a "nice" way of saying "God's body!" as on oath or expletive. Similar to "Sblood" (HAMLET) meaning "God's blood" I think these were sort of like saying "Darn" instead of "Damn" or, as in Pinafore "Damme" rather than the much tougher "Damn me" (I'll be damned!) Cheers, Tom Durrie (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Meredith Dixon To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Ods Bodkins No, it's not that "bodkins" is an abbreviation of "bodykins"; it's that "bodkins" is a politer "play" on "body"; the same sort of thing that people of Cole Porter's era did a lot (e.g. "She got pinched in the As...tor bar") So Ms. Dickey's correspondent is right about the phrase's literal meaning, and Mr. Durrie is right about the phrase's intent. Meredith Dixon dixonm@access.mountain.net (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Rostrom To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Ods Bodkins No: a bodkin is a pin, spike, or dagger (e.g. Hamlet's "bare bodkin"). "Ods bodkins" is the same as "God's nails" - the spikes with which Jesus was crucified - also known for some reason as "God's hooks", whence "Gadzooks". Rich Rostrom R-Rostrom@bgu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 09:57:45 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0593 Re: Chandos Portrait Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0593. Sunday, 4 August 1996. (1) From: John Cox Date: Friday, 02 Aug 1996 12:50:31 -0500 (EST) Subj: Chandos Portrait (2) From: Lee Jacobus Date: Friday, 02 Aug 96 15:42:06 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0590 Re: Chandos Portrait (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Friday, 02 Aug 1996 12:50:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Chandos Portrait In response to Roy Flannagan's question about the Chandos portrait, the best recommendation I can make is to read the one-page essay in the May 24 TLS. The author indeed argues that John Taylor of St. Paul's School could be the same John Taylor to whom the portrait is attributed. "Evidence" doesn't describe what he offers; in fact, he ends with the hope that evidence to support his hunch will be found. What he offers is a possible scenario that no one has thought of before--a hypothesis, if you will, rather than a proof. John Cox Hope College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lee Jacobus Date: Friday, 02 Aug 96 15:42:06 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0590 Re: Chandos Portrait Lee Jacobus to Roy Flannagan I thought I had the TLS right here, but I don't. It was a recent number, maybe within two months and the argument is quite interesting. The "evidence" is based on the possibility of a specific John Taylor in St. Paul's School having been the same JT who was said to have a good hand at draughtsmanship. Read it and see what you think. I found it plausible. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 10:08:17 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0594 Re: Whole Text on CD-ROM Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0594. Sunday, 4 August 1996. (1) From: Frank Whigham Date: Friday, 2 Aug 1996 16:54:52 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0591 Q: Whole Text on CD-ROM (2) From: Karen Pirnie Date: Friday, 2 Aug 1996 17:57:47 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0591 Q: Whole Text on CD-ROM (3) From: Lee Jacobus Date: Friday, 02 Aug 96 15:45:42T Subj: Re: SHK 7.0591 Q: Whole Text on CD-ROM (4) From: Karen Saupe Date: Friday, 2 Aug 1996 14:39:46 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0591 Q: Whole Text on CD-ROM (5) From: William L. Taylor <74642.2511@compuserve.com> Date: Saturday, 03 Aug 96 05:35:15 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0591 Q: Whole Text on CD-ROM (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frank Whigham Date: Friday, 2 Aug 1996 16:54:52 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0591 Q: Whole Text on CD-ROM Georgianna, There's a full-text Windows Shakespeare CD from the World Library, called the Shakespeare Study Guide, which also includes selected Barron's Book Notes (useful for checking for plagiarism). The text is primitive (awkward lineation, etc.), but it does function adequately for many concordance uses. I think it sells for maybe $40? (I didn't purchase it.) Hope this helps. Frank Whigham (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Pirnie Date: Friday, 2 Aug 1996 17:57:47 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0591 Q: Whole Text on CD-ROM In reply to Georgianna Ziegler's query, I have a very good CD-ROM for Windows called "William Shakespeare: The Complete Works on CD-ROM" put out by Andromeda Interactive. It includes line numbers and textual variants, good introductions, and notes for the major plays, as well as "study questions" at a good high school or college freshman level. It seems to be Taylor and Wells' recent Oxford text (the introduction to Pericles refers to their old-spelling edition), although they are rather shockingly not credited. Perhaps because no royalties are being paid, the CD cost only $49, as I recall. If your conscience permits, Andromeda's phone number is (510) 769-1616. (I've been able to assuage guilt with a gift of wine, but Gary would probably accept donations from colleagues not in Alabama.) Karen Pirnie University of Alabama (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lee Jacobus Date: Friday, 02 Aug 96 15:45:42 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0591 Q: Whole Text on CD-ROM About the Complete Works of Shakespeare on CD-ROM: I have a disk by Creative Multimedia at 513 NW 13th,Suite 400, Portland, OR 97209. I have looked through it and found it useful, but I have not really examined it for its textual reliability. It has the plays, poems, and sonnets "in full text." Missing an elegy, of course. I got it on some special order which I cannot remember--my copy says "not for individual resale." The compnay will know how you can get it. Good luck. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Saupe Date: Friday, 2 Aug 1996 14:39:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0591 Q: Whole Text on CD-ROM We've just purchased a CD that contains both Mac and Windows versions of the Oxford texts. (Apparently the Windows version is a very recent addition.) It's available from The Writing Company (800-421-4245; email access@WritingCo.com; web http://WritingCo.com/Shakespeare). Karen (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William L. Taylor <74642.2511@compuserve.com> Date: Saturday, 03 Aug 96 05:35:15 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0591 Q: Whole Text on CD-ROM Re: Georgianna Ziegler's inquiry about the complete text of Shakespeare on CD-ROM for Windows. In fact, there is such a disk, and there has been for years: "Library of the Future," 3rd edition, published by World Library. It contains 1750 titles, including the complete Shakespeare, complete Greek drama, complete Canterbury Tales (in modern English). Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, Samson Agonistes, other poetry and prose of Milton's. Complete Arthur Conan Doyle! Doctor Faustus. Complete Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon. You name it. Altogether, it's an astonishing array of texts. The disk is designed to run on either DOS or Windows 3.1, and it does so rather well. The search devices work well. It also includes video clips from film versions of a dozen or so of the works. They work fine on Windows 3.1, but since I have changed to Win 95, they run only in full screen, low resolution format, and I can't get any sound. It hardly matters--the video clips are nothing but a waste of disk space. That's the good news. The bad news is that there is virtually no editorial information or textual apparatus. Who edited the Shakespeare texts? Whose translation of the Canterbury Tales is this? Who translated the Greek plays? Who wrote that long, first-person introduction to his/her translation of Beowulf? Is this the A or B text of Faustus? (It's somebody's edition of A, but I haven't had occasion to figure out whose.) But there is some more good news: it costs $39.95. The same company also has a disk dedicated to Shakespeare alone, but I haven't seen it, and I don't know how much it is. Compared to disks currently available from other companies, I imagine it will be relatively free. I called them to see if they are still in business, and they are, and promise a 4th edition of Library of the Future this fall, with 5,000 titles! Despite its gross deficiencies, I have found this disk extremely useful on many occasions. They are in Garden Grove, California, and their phone number is 714-748-7197. Bill Taylor Seattle University ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 10:18:28 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0595 Re: Funeral Elegy (Joe Klein and SHAXICON) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0595. Sunday, 4 August 1996. From: Phyllis Gorfain Date: Friday, 02 Aug 1996 13:29:08 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0590 Re: Funeral Elegy Last week's NEWSWEEK magazine ran more than story on the Joe Klein flap, including a column by Klein himself; as a columnist for Newsweek, he had some aplogizing to do since Newsweek had more than once been led to portray him as emphatically not "Anonymous." Printed in more than one of these stories was the information that New York magazine hired Don Foster to do a computer analysis of Primary Colors, and that when he did so, he identified Joe Klein as the author; at that time, Klein denied authorship. I think it would be fascinating to hear from Don Foster, if he is willing to comment, about how Shaxicon's findings in the Primary Colors question indicates anything more about Shaxicon as an instrument for determining authorship. Don, are you willing to comment? Thanks, if so! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 09:26:28 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0596 *Hamlet* Questions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0596. Monday, 5 August 1996. From: Edna Z. Boris <104757.652@compuserve.com> Date: Sunday, 04 Aug 96 11:12:52 EDT Subject: Hamlet Questions Two Hamlet production questions: 1. Does anyone know who released the video called "Discovering Hamlet" and in what year? And at the same time, in what city and year the production in which Jacobi directed Branagh took place? 2. A more obscure question: in the 1977 Daniel Mesguich production of Hamlet, does anyone know what excerpt from Jean-Luc Godard's "La Chinoise" was inserted into the middle of the "To be" speech (which was spoken by a player and not Hamlet)? Would appreciate help on either or both questions. Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 10:00:24 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0597 Re: Whole Text on CD-ROM Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0597. Monday, 5 August 1996. From: Ton Hoenselaars Date: Monday, 05 Aug 1996 09:15:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: RE: SHK 7.0591 Q: Whole Text on CD-ROM Does not Andromeda market the Oxford Shakespeare (Wells & Taylor) with Windows facilities? The complete modern-spelling text of the plays, all the introductions, notes, and a glossary. Only the names of Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor are not mentioned. Or was Georgianna Ziegler thinking of the text on disk? Hope this helps, Ton Hoenselaars, Utrecht, The Netherlands. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 12:33:47 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0598 Re: *Hamlet* Questions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0598. Tuesday, 6 August 1996. From: Lawrence S Schwartz Date: Monday, 5 Aug 1996 10:18:54 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0596 *Hamlet* Questions "Discovering Hamlet" (it says here) is copyrighted 1990 by Unicorn Projects out of Washington, D.C. and was distributed by PBS Video. the catalog record, from NDSU's online catalog is reproduced below: Title: Discovering Hamlet [videorecording] / Unicorn Projects, Inc. ; produced by Larry Klein ; written and directed by Mark Olshaker. Publisher: Alexandria, Va. : PBS Video, c1990. Description: 1 videocassette (53 min.) : sd., col. ; 1/2 in. Performer-Note: Featuring The Renaissance Theatre Company, directed by Derek Jacobi. Performer-Note: Kenneth Branagh (Hamlet), Richard Easton (Claudius), Edward Jewesbury (Polonius), Sophie Thompson (Ophelia), Jay Villiers (Laertes), other actors and technical staff of the Company. Performer-Note: Patrick Stewart. Summary: Follows the week-by-week progress of the Company preparing to stage a production of Hamlet. The actors describe stage action and the characters they portray, and members of the technical crew discuss aspects of costuming, set design, lighting, and the problems of working with Shakespeare's 400-year-old text. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 12:39:32 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0599 Various Announcements Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0599. Tuesday, 6 August 1996. (1) From: Sara Jayne Steen Date: Monday, 5 Aug 1996 12:48:57 -0 Subj: CFP: RMMRA (2) From: Matthew Bibb Date: Monday, 05 Aug 96 12:11:20 PST Subj: UCLA Shakespeare Reading and Performance Group (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Jayne Steen Date: Monday, 5 Aug 1996 12:48:57 -0500 Subject: CFP: RMMRA Dear Shakespeareans, Here is the RMMRA call for papers for next year's conference. I hope many of you will submit. Best, Sara Jayne Steen President, RMMRA _____________________________________________ CALL FOR PAPERS Rocky Mountain Medieval and Renaissance Association l997 Meeting, Banff, Alberta, Canada The RMMRA will meet at the Banff Centre for Conferences in Banff National Park, May 15-May 18, 1997. Papers on any subject from Charlemagne to Charles II are invited, with particular emphasis on international and intercultural aspects. Especially welcome are papers dealing with the history, literatures, and art of Africa, Asia, eastern Europe, and the Americas (with or without reference to contact with western Europe), literatures in languages other than English, and pedagogical questions and the use of new technologies in teaching medieval and Renaissance subjects. Papers may be delivered in English or French. Membership in the RMMRA is required of all participants. Dues are $20 US, and entitle members to receive, and submit papers to, the association's journal. Contact the secretary, Professor Kenneth Graham, Department of English, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA. e-mail kgraham@nmsu.edu Deadlines: For session proposals, September 20, 1996. With your proposal please include the title of the session and brief CVs of all participants (each one's highest degree, academic appointment, and major publications). Individual papers may be of whatever length the organizer specifies, but, except by special arrangement, the session may last no longer than 90 minutes, including question period. For independent submissions, any time up to January 31, 1997. Only completed papers received by this date will be considered for inclusion in the programme. Except by special prior arrangement, no paper should take more than 20 minutes reading time. Address inquiries, proposals, and MSS to Professor Jean MacIntyre, Department of English, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2E5. e-mail jean.macintyre@ualberta.ca Sara Jayne Steen Professor of English Montana State University-Bozeman uenss@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Bibb Date: Monday, 05 Aug 96 12:11:20 PST Subject: UCLA Shakespeare Reading and Performance Group The UCLA Shakespeare Reading and Performance Group now has a web site where one can learn all about our organization. the address is... http://gopher.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/shakespeare/ If you are going to be in the Los Angeles area, we look forward to seeing you at one of our productions. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 12:43:27 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0600 Qs: Hamlet Trial; Shakespeare's Living Quarters Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0600. Tuesday, 6 August 1996. (1) From: Juliette Cunico Date: Monday, 5 Aug 1996 14:11:43 -0600 (MDT) Subj: *Hamlet* on Trial (2) From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Monday, 05 Aug 1996 16:32:40 -0400 Subj: Shakespeare's Living Quarters? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juliette Cunico Date: Monday, 5 Aug 1996 14:11:43 -0600 (MDT) Subject: *Hamlet* on Trial Does anyone know where I might obtain a copy of the recent re-broadcast on C-Span of "The Trial of Hamlet?" If so, please respond privately to juliette@aix.unm.edu. Thank you! (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Monday, 05 Aug 1996 16:32:40 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare's Living Quarters? I recall reading somewhere, it may have been in the Shakespeare Quarterly, that recent evidence was discovered showing where Shakespeare had lived, for an unspecified period of time, while in London. I think the article said he had lived with a French couple? -- the husband was a jeweler? I just can't recall where I read it. Does this ring a bell with anyone? Patrick Gillespie========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 10:07:35 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0601 Re: Funeral Elegy (Joe Klein and SHAXICON) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0601. Wednesday, 7 August 1996. From: David J. Kathman Date: Tuesday, 6 Aug 1996 18:49:29 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0595 Re: Funeral Elegy (Joe Klein and SHAXICON) I tried sending this a few days ago, but it seems to have become lost in cyberspace, so I'll try again. Bob Evans asked: >Am I correct in remembering that Don Foster, using his computer program, was >quoted on SHAKSPER as determining that Joe Klein was the author of _Primary >Colors_? Has there been any comment on SHAKSPER since this analysis was >subsequently confirmed by Klein's confession? Does this news affect anyone's >position in the debate? Just curious. Don Foster was not quoted on SHAKSPER as saying that Klein wrote *Primary Colors*; rather, he wrote an article to that effect for New York magazine back in February. In light of the publicity surrounding the Funeral Elegy, New York had commissioned Don to use his methods to compare *Primary Colors* with writing samples of major suspects, to see whether any of them matched. What he did was compare vocabulary overlap, using search-and-retrieval software; each writer tends to use a distinctive vocabulary, and while this method can't by itself determine authorship, it will at least give strong clues and point in the right direction. None of the writers in the first batch they sent him, which included all the leading suspects at the time, stood out as matching *Primary Colors'* vocabulary more than the others. So they sent him text from more candidates, and when he tried Klein, there was more than twice as much vocabulary overlap as with any other candidate. When he looked at Klein's prose more closely, he found many distinctive characteristics -- words, phrases, constructions -- shared by Klein and Anonymous, but not by any other candidates, and the ideas and themes found in the novel, particularly on race, closely matched those expressed by Klein in his Newsweek column. When the article came out, Klein vehemently denied being the author and publicly insulted Don, but of course a couple of weeks ago he admitted that he had been lying (though he still seems to hate Don's guts). As for the significance of the whole thing, I think it gives a big boost to the credibility of Foster's attribution methods --- it turns out he was right, even when the person identified as the author vehemently and repeatedly denied it. Since the same vocabulary overlap method used to help identify Klein points strongly to Shakespeare as the author of the Funeral Elegy (and does so from many different directions), Klein's confession should be seen as significant in the Elegy debate. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 10:20:31 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0602 *R3* Production Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0602. Wednesday, 7 August 1996. From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Wednesday, 7 Aug 1996 09:06:05 -0400 Subject: R3 Production A group called Vision Stages, working on the UNC-Charlotte campus recently staged _Richard III_, and while I was not thrilled by it, I nevertheless wanted to mention the production and ask a couple of questions. This was the first _R3_ I have seen on stage so forgive the naivete. The director, Allan (sp?) Poindexter, actually presented sizable portions of both _3 Henry VI_ (about 75 minutes, beginning with Rutland and York's deaths) and _R3_ (about 95 minutes). It made for a longish evening (I wasn't feeling well), but it was certainly intriguing. The program notes more than the closing night production itself highlighted a comparison of Margaret with Richard, a comparison that did seem to justify the edits. I'm sorry I don't have the program with me because Margaret deserves recognition and the actor who played Richard was quite good, too. (_3H6_'s Duke of York rose from his death scene, and we witnessed him, in silhouette, transform into the deformed Richard of Act 2 and beyond.) The nightmare/dream scenes from the fifth act of _R3_ were powerful, energetic, and illuminating. Where might Poindexter have read about the Margaret/Richard connection? Are there any good _R3_ videos available that make extensive use of _3H6_? --Chris Fassler ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 09:46:59 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0603 Folio as Acting Script Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0603. Thursday, 8 August 1996. From: Yu Jin Ko Date: Wednesday, 07 Aug 1996 13:15:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Folio as Acting Script I wonder if I can revive a subject that has been fairly well trod upon previously. I find myself still intrigued, if unconvinced, by the suggestion that the Folio represents an acting script. Are there people out there -- actors, directors, teachers, etc. -- who still hold strongly to this notion, and if so, could you make your voices heard on Shaksper? Alternatively, can people suggest recent work that takes up this idea? Thank you. Yu Jin Ko Wellesley College ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 07:28:26 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0604 Re: Funeral Elegy (Joe Klein and SHAXICON) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0604. Friday, 9 August 1996. From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Wednesday, 07 Aug 1996 13:51:21 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0601 Re: Funeral Elegy (Joe Klein and SHAXICON) >Bob Evans asked: >When he looked at Klein's prose >more closely, he found many distinctive characteristics -- words, phrases, >constructions -- shared by Klein and Anonymous, but not by any other >candidates, and the ideas and themes found in the novel, particularly on race, >closely matched those expressed by Klein in his Newsweek column. >I think it gives a big boost to the credibility of Foster's attribution methods I *does* give a significant boost to Mr. Foster's methods. I find it interesting however, that Mr. Foster felt compelled to not only use word overlap (which seems to be Shaxicon's sole criteria (?)) but also to compare phrases, constructions, ideas and themes! It seems Mr. Foster feels that Shaxicon's criteria, is only *part* of the overall process. I understand that he has attempted to prove FE as Shakespeare's by means other than the sole use of Shaxicon. However, it is freely accepted (isn't it?) that FE's use of phrases, contructions, ideas and themes are emphatically *not* typical or unique to Shakespeare. (There is an extreme paucity of figurative language, for example.) Does this not cast the FE attribution into doubt? If *the* primary feature of an author's "style" is missing, despite word overlap, isn't this pause for reconsideration? Word overlap *is* statistically significant, but I'm not sure it can be universally interpreted. In other words, just because there is word overlap should not, in itself, signify a common author. Is it not possible to interpret the word overlap in FE as, possibly, the influence of Shakespeare on the author of FE? (I wish I had Foster's book, which I understand is out of print.) Does the word overlap , for example, stem from one play of Shakespeare's, the entire corpus, or from one character's vocabulary? Foster, for instance, has been able to trace which characters Shakespeare might have played using this technique. If the rare word overlap stems from one play, isn't an equally good interpretation suggested in the idea that the author of FE was familiar with that play by Shakespeare? Was that play printed in the author's lifetime, for instance? Is word overlap the sole criteria for attributing FE to Shakespeare? As an aside, I have been doing some of my own stastical analysis, for instance: The following are words from the first 150 lines of FE that were *never* used by Shakespeare (according to my collected works on CD): predestinated bypath ridgeway unremembered overswayed ensnaring innated offenseless miscontruction unblushing defame only used once by Shakespeare, not including "defamed". Using *only* Ford's other Funeral Elegies we find: unremembered Fame's Memorial l. 736 innated Fame's Memorial l. 503 defame Used three times in FM Unfortunately, I do not have Ford's plays in any database and so I cannot discover if the other words are present in Ford's works without carefully reading them. However, given the small sampling I have of Ford, compared to the entirety of Shakespeare, I cannot help but feel it is statistically significant that two of the ten words Shakespeare never used (again, according to my CD), appear in such a small sampling of Ford. Consider also "defame", which appears only once in the entirety of Shakespeare's works as compared to three times in Fame's Memorial alone. If anyone knows if Ford's works have been put into electronic media, I would be grateful for the knowledge and would be better able to make an accurate comparison. We need a FORDICON! Yours, Patrick Gillespie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 07:37:01 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0605 The Mountjoy Family Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0605. Thursday, 8 August 1996. From: Edna Z. Boris <104757.652@compuserve.com> Date: Wednesday, 07 Aug 96 20:00:20 EDT Subject: French The recent question about Shakespeare living with French people reminds me of something I read, see below, but which raises other questions. Sylvie Chevalley, now retired archivist at the Comedie Francaise library, in 1965 put together a monograph on William Shakespeare in which M.T. Jones-Davis's section on Shakespeare's life says that in 1613 he bought a house in London and also says that before then he apparently just rented a room in the London, either south of the Thames or north of the City with a French Huguenot family, the Mountjoy family. No documentation for these statements is provided, as though they are such common knowledge. Does anyone know specifics about what this information is based on? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 07:42:18 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0606 Re: Folio as Acting Script Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0606. Friday, 8 August 1996. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 8 Aug 96 22:09:31 GMT Subj: RE: SHK 7.0603 Folio as Acting Script (2) From: John Senczuk Date: Thursday, 9 Aug 1996 09:10:29 +1000 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0603 Folio as Acting Script (3) From: Cynthia Hoffman Date: Thursday, 8 Aug 1996 13:03:42 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0603 Folio as Acting Script (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 8 Aug 96 22:09:31 GMT Subject: RE: SHK 7.0603 Folio as Acting Script >I find myself still intrigued, if unconvinced, by the suggestion >that the Folio represents an acting script. Are there people out there -- >actors, directors, teachers, etc. -- who still hold strongly to this notion Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Senczuk Date: Thursday, 9 Aug 1996 09:10:29 +1000 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0603 Folio as Acting Script I am currently two weeks into rehearsal for productions of MEASURE FOR MEASURE and TIMON OF ATHENS (on a bare raised platform using the FOLIO texts) principally to exercise the <> maps evolved by Tim Fitzpatrick [Sydney University]. So far the Folio punctuation, emphasis (through capitals and italics), lineage [the half lines are tremendous prompts for action] and entrance placement have proved illuminating for actors. The meaning does come from the spoken word. I'll report further on the discoveries if it would be of interest. Yours John Senczuk University of Wollongong (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cynthia Hoffman Date: Thursday, 8 Aug 1996 13:03:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0603 Folio as Acting Script The most vocal advocate I'm aware of of this particular use of the folio is Patrick Tucker of the Original Shakespeare Company. I seriously doubt he's actually written anything about it given his contempt for academics and academia as a whole, however, I recently saw a production of The Taming of the Shrew in Toronto that was "directed" by him, and am attempting to get a second interview with the actor who played Petruchio to discuss what it was like to work both with Tucker and with the script in the ways that Tucker advocates. Geraint Wyn Davies, the actor who played Petruchio in this particular production described it as an interesting experience, but remained unconvinced that it was really Shakespeare. As someone who saw the production twice, on both opening and closing nights, as well as attending a workshop with Mr. Tucker that same weekend, I'm not convinced that it's more than a viable experiment, if and only if, one has the actors with the classical training to pull it off. Wyn Davies is talking about getting a group of classically trained actors together to do a play a night over a week's time and seeing what happens. But he emphasised that it would be necessary to have actors who were already familiar with the language and had major classical training. Shrew in April had three such actors. And by closing night, they were all running roughshod over the rest of them. It felt like an evening with Monty Python. Cynthia Hoffman UC Berkeley English choff@violet.berkeley.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 12:34:12 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0607 Review of The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0607. Friday, 8 August 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, August 9, 1996 Subject: Review of The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM (Long) [Below is my review of The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM: 1990-1993. A revised version of this review will appear in the Summer Issue of *The Shakespeare Newsletter* and be placed on the SHAKSPER file server. Comment by personal e-mail are welcome. HMC] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Harner, James L., ed. The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM: 1990-1993. Cambridge UP, 1996. The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM: 1990-1993 is the first release in The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM 1900-Present project, which, when complete, will "provide annotated entries for all important books, articles, book reviews, dissertations, theatrical productions, reviews of productions, audiovisual materials, electronic media, and other scholarly and popular materials related to Shakespeare and published or produced since 1900." This release "includes coverage of more than 12,000 works published or produced during 1990-1993 as well as several thousand additional reviews of books, productions, films, and audio recordings)." The plan is to update The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM annually, moving forward one year and backwards three. The next disk, scheduled for release in early 1997, will, thus, cover 1987-1994, with 24,700 plus entries and another 30,000 to 40,000 reviews, newspaper pieces, and the like appended to these entries. This embedding of reviews and newspaper pieces constitutes one way that the CD-ROM bibliography differs from the Shakespeare Quarterly print version, which usually provides individual citations for each. The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM differs from the print bibliography in other ways too. One obvious difference in the media is physical: The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM: 1990-1993 fits on one CD-ROM, while the four print volumes that it constitutes take up three inches of space on the shelf. In addition, the CD-ROM bibliography "both cumulates and significantly expands the annual bibliographies in Shakespeare Quarterly, it omits several entries in the latter (especially works peripherally related to Shakespeare, most obituaries of performers, abstracts of unpublished convention papers, and operas not based on Shakespeare texts), condenses some (especially by omitting non-speaking roles in entries for productions), and conflates others (especially abstracts of published works and book or production reviews originally listed as separate entries)." I am sure that I am not the only Shakespearean whose ritual upon receiving the print World Shakespeare Bibliography in the mail is to turn to the "Author Index" in the back and check my own citations. I thought that this ritual might be the place to begin with this examination of The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM, especially with my rather modest output during these four years. In the 1990 print World Shakespeare Bibliography, I had two citations: 1043 was a reference to eight abstracts in ShN from the SAA seminar "Using the Computer in Shakespeare Studies" of which I was a participant, while 1098 was a citation of the abstract itself. In 1991, I also had two citations: 973, a piece I did for ShN on a dual exhibition at the Folger Library, "Royal Autographs and First Folios Exhibited at Folger"; and 1322, a citation of abstracts of four articles I made for ShN. In 1992, there were four citations: 673, the 1992 Summer Festivals list I compile for ShN; 1065, a reference to my review of Janet Adelman's Suffocating Mothers for ShN; and 3103 and 4654, my essay "Jane Howell's BBC First Tetralogy: Theatrical and Televisual Manipulation" in LFQ and a cross reference to it. In 1993 were a citation for the 1993 Summer Festivals list (827) and an entry for the SHAKSPER Listserv (962). Then I turned to the CD-ROM version. I began by starting the Cambridge DynaText Reader. In the opening screen of the DynaText Reader, I double clicked the World Shakespeare Bibliography from the book collection. What appeared to the left is the table of contents - the four major divisions of the taxonomy ("General Shakespeareana," "Play Groups," Individual Works," and "Indexes"). The subdivisions of these major divisions are accessible by a mouse click on the plus sign to the left. In a separate window to the right is the text, the entries themselves with hypertext links to cross-references indicated by a red arrow. With typical power-user hubris (that is, not consulting the User's Manual), I entered "Cook, Hardy" in the "Find" panel at the bottom of the screen. I got seven hits as indicated on the first line on left side by a red "7" next to the table of contents title, The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM: 1990-1993. Just below, "General Shakespeareana" was highlighted with a red "4" next to the plus sign; on the right was the 1992 Summer Festivals entry (1174). Just above these are thirteen button icons. DynaText does not as yet provide "bubble" help identifying the icons, but the first icon, a flashlight, is normally used for "Find," while the second and third - a triangle pointing left and right respectively - are used for "Previous" and "Next." So I clicked the right pointing triangle, and viola at the top of the text window now was displayed citation 1684, the 1993 Summer Festivals entry; on the left, "General Shakespeareana" remained highlighted. One more click on the "Next" icon revealed a reference to my Suffocating Mothers review, embedded in the citation for the work itself (1926). Another click brought me to the entry for SHAKSPER (2012). The next click took me out of "General Shakespeareana" to the two citations under "Individual Works," my essay on Jane Howell (6265) and its cross reference (9822). The last hit for "Cook, Hardy" was to the "Authors Index" to which I will return in a moment. I next clicked the flashlight icon, which returned me to the "Find" panel at the bottom of the screen with "Cook, Hardy" still highlighted. A click on the fourth icon, a flashlight with in a circle with a slanted line through it, returned me to the "Find" panel and erased my previous search. I then searched for "Hardy Cook." The four hits (one in "Play Groups"; the other three in "Individual Works) were embedded references to the four article abstracts I prepared for ShN in 1991 (3883, 7077, 7809, and 9090). With "Cook, Hardy" and "Hardy Cook" uncovering seven of the ten citations from the print bibliography, I decided to see what a boolean search (and, or, not) would reveal, so I searched for "Hardy and Cook." The resulting number of hits (28) indicated in the table of contents window is misleading. In the first three major divisions of the taxonomy, the search engine clearly counted a single entry as two hits (the appearance of "Hardy and Cook" or "Cook and Hardy" together in a single citation counted as two hits and not as one; further, when I added my middle initial, the same single citation counted as three hits when the "M." was present.) What I do not understand is why in the "Author Index" the "Cook" of the two authors before and after me (Carol, Dorothy, Heather, and Judith) were also highlighted and counted. This anomaly not withstanding, the boolean search of "Hardy and Cook" uncovered eleven citations (1174, 1684, 1865, 1926, 2012, 3883, 6265, 7077, 7809, 9090, and 9822) and the "Author Index" entry. The only citation I found by the boolean search that did not show up in the two previous simple searches was 1865 - a reference to my piece on the dual Folger Library exhibition embedded in the citation for the catalogue Peter Blayney wrote for his exhibit - The First Folio of Shakespeare. I have purposely postponed discussing the "Author Index" entry until now. The taxonomy in the left-hand window can be scrolled through to browse the CD-ROM bibliography in a manner analogous to using the print bibliography. I mentioned earlier what I do when I receive the print bibliography in the mail. I could have approached the CD-ROM version is a similar manner. Clicking the plus sign next to "Indexes" reveals its four divisions - "Authors," "Actors," "Dramatists," and "Subjects." By clicking "Authors," the letters of the alphabet appear. By highlighting "C" and typing "Cook, Hardy" in the "Find" panel or by scrolling through the Cs, I reached "Cook, Hardy," revealing the eleven citations I have already uncovered through my three searches. To reach any of these citations, all I needed to do was click on the citation number. Viola all over again, power-user hubris pay back, but what did I learn from this experiment? First, I learned that all of the citations except those to the unpublished abstract of my SAA seminar paper that were in the print version appeared in the CD-ROM (as the introductory matter to the bibliography indicates) and that the article abstracts that had received one citation in print were embedded in the four abstracted articles in the CD-ROM as was my review of Suffocating Mothers and the Folger Library dual exhibition piece (again, as indicted in the introductory material). Second, I learned that one can use the indexes and the table of contents (taxonomy) to search or browse The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM in a manner comparable to the ways one uses the print version and that one can initiate both simple and complex searches of the database. In fact, the power and speed of searching is the clearest advantage the CD-ROM has over its print counterpart. Let me illustrate. A simple search to find references to "Fluellen" might start in the table of contents section: Click "Indexes"; click "Subjects"; click "F"; type "Fluellen" in "find" box; resulting in two hits of articles discussing Fluellen. The taxonomy, however, indicates other hits. To see what they were, I could scroll through the list or return the text window to the beginning and enter "Fluellen" in the "Find" panel. Either way ten reviews of Henry V with stage credits for Fluellen are located. However, much more sophisticated searches are possible using the "Search Forms" dialog box. To reach it, I clicked on "Book" from the menu bar and selected "Search Forms." The top half of this dialog box records "Past Searches." Below this is a search form selection panel, with the default display being "Standard," and another "Find" panel. At the bottom are four buttons: "Find," "Cancel," "Previous," and "Next." In this default configuration, "Search Forms" acts just like the "Find" panel at the bottom of the screen. Clicking on "Standard" reveals the other search forms: "Entry Title," "Entry Author," Entry Number," "Proximity Search," "Keyword Search," and "Keyword and Language." The "Search Forms" dialog box can be left open and used to maneuver through searches with the results displayed in the text window. "Entry Title" is used to search words in titles; "materialist," for example, appears in three titles in this CD-ROM. "Entry Author" locates only the author, editor, compiler, and the like of entries. "Entry Number" quickly locates citations by their numbers. "Keyword" searches for entries that contain particular words in their keyword field. "Keyword and Language" searches entries in a particular language: "King Lear" and "fr" locates Yves Thoret's "Le m'canisme de d'chirement dans Le roi Lear." "Proximity Search" is especially powerful, locating, for instance, "Branagh" within "10" words of "Ado." These searches can be further enhanced using wild card operators "*" and "?"; thus "act*" will locate act, acts, acting, actor, actors, and so on, while "advi?e" will locate all instances of both "advice" and "advise." Boolean operators can be used to construct very complex searches: "(Hamlet and Q1) or (Hamlet and bad quarto)" will find all cases of "Hamlet" occurring within twenty words of either "Q1" or "bad quarto." Other complex searches can take advantage of the underlying Standard General Markup Language (SGML) encoding of each bibliographical entry to perform context searches using the keywords "containing," "directly," "in," "inside," "null," "in," "with," and "=." I repeat the searching tools illustrate the clearest advantage of the CD-ROM over its print counterpart, yet there is still many more ways to use the CD-ROM. I mentioned above that The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM contains cross- references - hyperlinks. Clicking on Venus and Adonis in the table of contents window brings the text window to the Venus and Adonis, Scholarship and Criticism, Editions and Texts sections. Scrolling down the text reveals a number of hyperlinks, indicated by a red arrow to the left side of the entry. Double clicking the red arrow at Jonathan Bate's "Sexual Perversity in Venus and Adonis" brings up a cross-reference to Bate's Shakespeare and Ovid, a book that incorporates the essay that appeared in Yearbook of English Studies. The "Annotation" feature allows users to create their own hyperlinks, bookmarks, and notes that are appended to entries the user selects. Selecting "Book" from the menu bar and then "Create Annotation" from the submenu bring up the annotation choices: "Create Bookmark," "Start Hyperlink," "End Hyperlink," "Create Note." There are also icon buttons for creating a bookmark, opening a note, starting a hyperlink, and ending a hyperlink. If I want to append a note to an entry, I would first select "Create Note," then compose, name, and save the note. If I wanted to bookmark this entry, I would select "Create Bookmark" and then name it. If I wanted to hyperlink this entry to another, I would select "Start Hyperlink," move to the entry I wanted to link, select "End Hyperlink," and name the cross reference. Having done these things, I could then use the "Manage Annotations," submenu under "Book" directly to go to a bookmarked entry, note, or hyperlink. Red symbols to the right indicate bookmarks, notes, and user-created hyperlinks. Clicking these also activates them. The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM surely provides an impressive array of tools for searching and manipulating within its database, but how does one move that information out of the database into other forms? One can copy text to the clipboard. Any amount of contiguous text can be highlighted in the text window and saved to the clipboard. From the clipboard that information can be pasted into an application. One can even copy material to the clipboard with its SGML encoding. In preparing this review, I have many times toggled between the CD-ROM and Word 7.0 to paste names, titles, and other information directly into this document. However, others times, I wanted to print or export the entries for later use. Herein lies my biggest complaint with this version of the DynaText software used with the CD-ROM. To print or export an entry, that entry must first be highlighted in the table of contents window. If this is not done, printing begins with the first entry and would continue to the last unless the printing is suspended. I have in my recycling bin next to my desk about six copies of the first few pages of The World Shakespeare Bibliography I printed mistakenly. This difficulty is responsibility not of James Harner or the Cambridge University Press but of Electronic Book Technologies, Inc., of Providence, Rhode Island, who makes the DynaText program. Not only should printing be simplified, one should also be able to tag a list of entries to be printed or exported at the same time rather than having to process by single entries. The only other major suggestion I would offer to improve the DynaText interface would be the addition of an icon that would return the user to the beginning of the text. As I have noted, a search proceeds from the current location in the text - this was the reason that when I was in the Indexes after I highlighted the letter "C" I could type "Cook, Hardy" in the "Find" panel and go directly to my name in the "Author Index." Other changes are planned for the next few releases. For The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM: 1987-1994, users will be able to limit searches by document type (book monograph, book collection, article, dissertation, film, production, recording, and so on). It is also hoped that DynaText will build in features that allow users to display hits in short form (rather than scrolling immediately to the first hit) and allow marking of multiple records for printing or exporting. It is also planned that this version will have some omnibus entries that group miscellaneous general-interest pieces (such as the newspaper articles on the discovery of the Globe and Rose; general pieces on the RSC; travel pieces and general introductions to major Shakespeare festivals; organizations (SAA, Deutsche Shakespeare-Gesellschaft). In the future are also plans for changes in the taxonomy (especially in the sections for Editions, Apocrypha, and Biography). Much credit should be given to the Cambridge University Press for keeping the cost of The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM affordable for the average end-user. All too often the temptation is to cater to the library market with outrageously overpriced CD-ROMs that only libraries can afford. Also, every expectation is that yearly upgrades will be similarly low-priced; my hope would be that an upgrade would cost roughly the same a buying the Shakespeare Quarterly print edition. The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM gets my enthusiastic endorsement. Do I plan to upgrade every year? No doubt about it. Does this mean, given the choice, I would no longer buy the print version? Well. The most current print version is and it appears that it will remain available a year or more ahead of its CD-ROM counterpart. Thus, until the print and CD-ROM WSB are released at the same time, to be able to have access to the most recent material on a subject, it would still be wise to have the Shakespeare Quarterly version available. The print version does look good on my bookshelf, but it does take up quite a bit of space. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 11:12:49 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0608 Re: F as Acting Script; Mountjoy Family; Turn-of-c. Texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0608. Monday, 12 August 1996. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 8 Aug 96 22:09:31 GMT Subj: RE: SHK 7.0603 Folio as Acting Script (2) From: David J. Kathman Date: Friday, 9 Aug 1996 18:59:21 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0605 The Mountjoy Family (3) From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Monday, 12 Aug 1996 09:41:55 -0400 Subj: Turn-of-century texts II (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 8 Aug 96 22:09:31 GMT Subject: RE: SHK 7.0603 Folio as Acting Script [Editor's Note: I inadvertently deleted Gabriel Egan's comment on this topic Friday. Below is the posting as it should have appeared. --HMC] >I find myself still intrigued, if unconvinced, by the suggestion >that the Folio represents an acting script. Are there people out there -- >actors, directors, teachers, etc. -- who still hold strongly to this notion The series of Shakespeare play texts called "Shakespeare's Globe Acting Editions" is based on this fallacy, expounded in their introductions. Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David J. Kathman Date: Friday, 9 Aug 1996 18:59:21 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0605 The Mountjoy Family [Editor's Note: Tomorrow, I will be moving the SUN work station on which SHAKSPER resides to my office. This move will give me greater physical control of the machine, resulting I hope in few anomolies. The machine's address will remain the same -- ws.BowieState.edu -- the IP address will, however, be changed. This change will be completely transparent to members of SHAKSPER. --HMC] I tried sending this the other day, but cyberspace gremlins seem to have eaten it up. Since somebody else just posted a query about the Mountjoys, I'm giving it another try. ************************** Patrick Gillespie asked: >I recall reading somewhere, it may have been in the Shakespeare Quarterly, that >recent evidence was discovered showing where Shakespeare had lived, for an >unspecified period of time, while in London. I think the article said he had >lived with a French couple? -- the husband was a jeweler? I just can't recall >where I read it. Does this ring a bell with anyone? You're thinking of the Bellott-Mountjoy lawsuit. It was discovered by Charles and Hulda Wallace in 1909, which I wouldn't exactly call "recent"; it's in all the standard biographical works, such as Chambers, Schoenbaum, etc. The Wallaces announced the find in an article in *Harper's* in 1910 called "New Shakespeare Discoveries: Shakespeare as a Man among Men", and published transcripts of all the documents later that year in Nebraska University Studies 10:4. The couple Shakespeare lived with was Christopher and Mary Mountjoy, who were French Huguenots; Christopher was not a jeweler but a tiremaker, a maker of elaborate ornamental headdresses (made of gold and silver thread and studded with jewels) for well-to-do ladies. These ladies included Queen Anne, wife of King James, who once paid Mary Mountjoy the huge sum of 59 pounds for tires she and her husband had made. Their house was at the northeast corner of Monkwell and Silver Streets, in the northwest corner of the old city walls near Cripplegate. (This house, along with the entire neighborhood, was destroyed in the Great Fire of 1666). Shakespeare met the Mountjoys around 1602 and was living with them at least in 1604, and possibly for some time before and after. We know this because of a lawsuit filed in 1612 by Christopher Mountjoy's former apprentice, Stephen Bellott, who had married the Mountjoys' daughter Mary. The details can be found in Schoenbaum or any decent biography, but basically the dispute arose over money: Bellott had expected a marriage settlement of 60 pounds, but Mountjoy only gave him 10 pounds plus a bunch of crappy household items, and over a series of years further bad blood between the two eventually led to the lawsuit. Shakespeare was called to testify because he had been employed by the Mountjoys as a matchmaker back in 1604, to try to persuade Bellott (who they saw at the time as a good catch) to marry their daughter. However, in his deposition Will couldn't remember exactly what marriage settlement had been promised, and since nobody else could either, the case was referred for arbitration to the French church in London, which concluded that both sides were acting like children but awarded Bellott 20 nobles. Shakespeare most likely met the Mountjoys through his publisher and fellow Stratfordian Richard Field, who with his French wife Jacqueline had moved to Wood Street, a block away from the Mountjoys, in 1600. It's interesting to note that numerous technical terms from tiremaking are sprinkled through Shakespeare's plays written after 1604, suggesting that he had learned something about his landlord's craft. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Monday, 12 Aug 1996 09:41:55 -0400 Subject: Turn-of-century texts II Sorry, David Evett, I knew that first list was missing something. More suggestions about possible materials for a turn of the century course: --Francis Bacon, essays --wills and other documents sometimes included in biographies, e.g. those of Burghley, Shakespeare, Sidney, Elizabeth --John Nichols, ed., progresses of Elizabeth and James --a video of Jonson's _Oberon_ produced for the Ohio Shakespeare Conference ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 11:17:14 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0609 Apology to Readers of SHAKSPER Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0609. Monday, 12 August 1996. From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Saturday, 10 Aug 1996 13:10:32 -0400 Subject: Apology to Readers of SHAKSPER I want to to make several apologies. First, it is becoming apparent to me that SHAXICON tallies far more than just word overlap. So, I would like to withdraw some of my comments below, stemming, admittedly, from my ignorance of how SHAXICON works, which I am attempting to remedy. I have also discovered that I've repeated some assertions maintaining Ford as the author of FE. I also want to apologize for this repetition. Furthermore, I do not want to leave anyone with the impression that I am attacking Foster or SHAXICON, only the interpetation. I very much admire Foster and his work and I am also tired by those who cannot confront Foster's argument without also attacking him or "his reputation". Insofar as intepreting the data provided by SHAXICON, I remain *very* skeptical. However, before I continue exploring the possibility of Ford, which has already been explored by others, I shall have to become more familiar with what has already been done. There are admittedly factors which seem to eliminate Ford, but there are also factors which seem to eliminate Shakespeare - aesthetic factors which need to be defined. I will keep my peace, however, until I've come to better understand Foster's position. >However, it is freely accepted (isn't it?) that FE's use of >phrases, contructions, ideas and themes are emphatically *not* typical or >unique to Shakespeare. (There is an extreme paucity of figurative language, for >example.) Does this not cast the FE attribution into doubt? If *the* primary >feature of an author's "style" is missing, despite word overlap, isn't this >pause for reconsideration? Word overlap *is* statistically significant, but I'm >not sure it can be universally interpreted. Yours, Patrick Gillespie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 11:56:52 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0610 Administravia Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0610. Monday, 12 August 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Monday, August 12, 1996 Subject: Administravia Milla Riggio has asked me to remind members of the SHAKSPER MEMBERS file. This file is a alphabetical listing of all of the current members of SHAKSPER. It can be used to locate the e-mail address of a member for private correspondence. To retrieve "SHAKSPER MEMBERS", send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET SHAKSPER MEMBERS". New member Robert Jarman has sent me several additions and corrections to the SPINOFF BIBLIO. To retrieve "SPINOFF BIBLIO", send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET SPINOFF BIBLIO". Should you have difficulty receiving these or any of the files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, please contact me at or . Below you will find the most recent copy of the SHAKSPER FILES file -- a list of all the files available on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, updated August 1, 1996. You may wish to browse through it for files of interest to you. Many of these files are updated regularly, some on a daily, some weekly, and others on a monthly basis. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SHAKSPER FILES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Fileserver Procedures: SHAKSPEReans can retrieve any of files below from the SHAKSPER Fileserver by sending a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET ". For further information, contact the editor -- or . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Information Files, Especially for New Members: ------------------------------------------------------------------- LISTSERV COMMANDS A list of the most common commands for using LISTSERV. SHAKSPER MEMBERS Current list of all SHAKSPER members and their electronic addresses. SHAKSPER FILES A descriptive listing of the SHAKSPER Fileserver's contents (this file). SHAKSPER ANNOUNCE An introduction to the SHAKSPER Conference, and instructions on becoming a member. [This file is available for redistribution.] Reference Files: -------------------------------------------------------------------- DIRECTRY INSTITUT A directory of Shakespearean institutes, organizations, journals, and libraries. Additions welcome. RIVERSID ERRORS A listing of errors in the Electronic Text Corporation WordCruncher Riverside Shakespeare compiled by Ken Steele. Additions welcome. SPINOFF BIBLIO A bibliography of poems, novels, plays, and films inspired by Shakespeare's life and works.Begun by Lawrence Schimel; updated by Hardy Cook. Additions welcome. CHARACTR BIBLIO A bibliography of works in which Shakespeare figures as a character. Begun by Lawrence Schimel; updated by Hardy Cook. Additions welcome. MONSTERP SPINOFF A Sesame Street "Monsterpiece Theatre" version of *Hamlet* with Mel Gibson. ETHICAL TREATISS A List of Pre-eminent Ethical Treatises of the 16th Century in conjectural order of importance. Compiled by Ben Schneider, Lawrence University, August 1994. Scholarly Papers: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Amit, Florence. "Shakespeare's Hebrew" (SHAKS HEBREW) Bains, Yashdip. "Loose Ends and Inconsistencies in the First Quarto of Shakespeare's Hamlet?" *Hamlet Studies* 18 (1996): 94-104. (LOOSE ENDS) Cacicedo, Al. "Private Parts" Preliminary notes for an essay on gender identity in Shakespeare. (PRIVATE PARTS) Cook, Hardy M. "Two *Lear*s for Television: An Exploration of Televisual Strategies." *Literature/Film Quarterly*. 14 (1986): 179-186. Reprinted in Bulman and Coursen *Shakespeare and Television: An Anthology of Essays and Reviews*, 122-129. (TWOLEARS FOR_TV) ---. "Jane Howell's BBC First Tetralogy: Theatrical and Televisual Manipulation." *Literature/Film Quarterly*. 20 (1992): 326-331. (HOWELL BBC) ---. "A Shakespearean in the Electronic Study." A paper. submitted to the computing approaches seminar of the 1990 SAA conference in Philadelphia. (ELECTRON STUDY) ---. Review of Janet Adelman's *Suffocating Mothers: Fantasies of Maternal Origins in Shakespeare's Plays, HAMLET to THE TEMPEST* (New York and London: Routledge, 1992). *Shakespeare Newsletter* (42.2, Summer 1992, 29-30). (MOTHERS REVIEW) ---. "Valuing the Material Text: A Plea for a Change in Policy Concerning Selection of Reference Texts for Future New Variorum Shakespeare Editions, with Examples from the 1609 Quarto of SHAKE-SPEARES SONNETS." A paper submitted to the "Shakespeare's Sonnets: Mapping Uncertainty" seminar of the 1994 SAA conference in Albuquerque. (MATERIAL TEXT) ---. "Reformatting *Hamlet*: Creating a Q1 *Hamlet* for Television." A paper submitted to the "Reformatting the Bard" seminar of the 1996 Sixth World Shakespeare Congress in Los Angeles. (REFORMAT HAMLET) Culwell, Lori M. "The Role of the Clown in Shakespeare's Theatre" (ROLE CLOWN) Evett, David. "Remembering Death: Deathbed Scenes in Shakespeare's Plays and the Visual Tradition." Seminar Paper for Shakespeare and the Graphic Arts. 1994 Annual Meeting of SAA. (DEATHBED SCENES) Godshalk, William Leigh. "*Twelfth Night*: All or Nothing? What You Will, It's All One -- Or Is It?" (12NIGHT ALLONOTH) Green, Douglas E. "New-Minted Shakespeare: Old Currency in a New Classroom Economy." 1993 SAA seminar paper. (CLASSRM ECONOMY) Hill, Harry. "The Mixture of 'High' and 'Low' Culture in Hamlet I,i: A Close Reading." This paper was delivered at Popular Culture Association Meeting in Syracuse, NY, on November 2nd 1995. (HIGH_LOW CULTURE) Horton, Thomas B. (Thesis Abstract) A stylometric analysis of Shakespeare and Fletcher. (STYLOMET FLETCHER) Lancashire, Ian. "The Public Domain Shakespeare." Paper presented at 1992 MLA Session on Electronic Archives. (LANCSHIR PD_SHAKE) Lakowski, Ramuald I. "The Misogyny of Richard III in More's History of King Richard III and Shakespeare's King Richard the Third." (MORESHAK RICHARD3) Lamonico, Michael. "Teaching Shakespeare with a Computer" and "Seek Me Out By Computation." (COMPUTER TEACHING) Leslie, Robert W. "Shakespeare's Italian Dream: Cinquecento Sources for *A Midsummer Night's Dream*." (ITALIAN DREAM) Loughlin, Thomas W. "Shakespeare by Mail: An Experience in Distance Learning Using Electronic Mail." (LEARNING BY_EMAIL) McKenzie, Stanley D. "The Prudence and Kinship of Prince Hal and John of Lancaster in 2 Henry IV." (PRUDENCE KINSHIP) Matsuba, Stephen. "`The Cunning Pattern of Excelling Nature': Literary Computing and Shakespeare's Sonnets." A paper presented at the ALLC/ICCH conference, "The Dynamic Text," Toronto Canada, June 1989. (COMPUTER SONNETS) Schneider, Ben Ross. "Granville's Jew of Venice (1701): A Close Reading of Shakespeare's Merchant." (GRANVILL JEW_OF_V) Shand, G.B. Skip. "Queen of the First Quarto." Performance-oriented study of the Queen in the first Quarto *Hamlet*. Abstract: SHAND ABSTRACT SHAKSPER Paper: HAMLETQ1 QUEEN SHAKSPER Steele, Kenneth B. "Vowing, Swearing, and Superpraising of Parts: Petrarch and Pyramus in the Woods of Athens." Paper delivered at the 14th Annual Patristic, Medieval and Renaissance Conference, Villanova, Pennsylvania, September 1989. (PETRARCH PYRAMUS) ---. "`This Falls Out Better Than I Could Devise': Play-bound Playwrights and the Nature of Shakespearean Comedy." An expanded version of a paper contributed to the ludic elements seminar at the 1990 SAA Conference in Philadelphia. (SURROGAT PLAYWRIT) ---. "'Leaden Contemplation': Ambiguous Evidence of Revision in Q1 Love's Labour's Lost." Textual study of passages of duplication in Q1 LLL. Abstract: STEELE ABSTRACT SHAKSPER Paper: LLL-Q1 REVISION SHAKSPER ---. "`The Letter was not Nice but Full of Charge': Towards an Electronic Facsimile of Shakespeare." A paper presented at the ALLC/ICCH conference, "The Dynamic Text," Toronto Canada, June 1989. (DYNAMIC SHAKSPER) ---. "`Look What Thy Memory Cannot Contain': The Shakespeare Electronic Text Archive." _Shakespeare Bulletin_ 7:5 (September/ October 1989): 25-8. (WCRUNCHR SHAKSPER) Strickland, Ron. "Teaching Shakespeare Against the Grain." A shorter version appeared in *Teaching Shakespeare Today: Practical Approaches and Productive Strategies*. Eds. James Davis and Ronald Salomone. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English, 1993. (AGAINST THEGRAIN) Urkowitz, Stephen. "'Do me the kindnes to looke vpon this' and 'Heere, read, read': An Invitation to the Pleasures of Textual/ Sexual Di(Per)versity." Paper presented to the 1991 SAA in Vancouver. (URKOWITZ RJ-MWW) Waller, Gary. "Teaching the Late Plays as Family Romance." (FAMILY ROMANCE) Reviews and Performance Criticism: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Horton, G. L. "Review of the American Repertory Theatre's *Tempest*" for *AisleSay*. (AM_REP.TEMPEST) Kamen, Jack M. Review of John Gross's *Shylock* (SHYLOCK REVIEW) Public Domain Shakespeare Files: -------------------------------------------------------------------- SONNETS 1609Q A transcription of the 1609 Quarto of Shakespeare's *Sonnets*, contributed to the public domain by Hardy M. Cook. Untagged Version. SONNETS TAG1609Q A fully tagged text of the 1609 Quarto of Shakespeare's *Sonnets*, contributed to the public domain by Hardy M. Cook. Tagged Version. HENRY8 FOLIO1 A thoroughly tagged text of the 1623 First Folio text of Shakespeare's *Henry VIII*, contributed to the public domain by Thomas B. Horton. CORNMARK ERRORS Text of Thomas Hull's (1728-1808) adaptation of Shakespeare's *Comedy of Errors* entered from Cornmarket Press's 1971 facsimile, contributed to the public domain by Thomas B. Horton. CIBBER R3 Text of Colly Cibber's *Richard III* transcribed by Thomas Dale Keever. FUNERAL ELEGY W[illiam] S[hakespeare], "A Funeral Elegy for Master William Peter," (London: G.Eld for T.Thorpe, 1612). Normalized text, ed. Donald Foster. FORD ELEGIES Ford, John. "Fame's Memorial," "John Ford in commendation of his very good friend the Author," "On the Best of English Poets, Ben Jonson," and "A memorial offered to that man of virtue, Sir Thomas Overbury." Transcribed by Patrick Gillespie. Scripts and Transcriptions: --------------------------------------------------------------------- WIVES SCRIPT An adaptation of *Merry Wives of Windsor* by David Richman, prepared for the ARTSREACH program of the University of New Hampshire's Department of Theatre and Dance. DOCTOR DODYPOLL A transcription of *The Wisdome of Dr. Dodypoll* made by Patrick Gillespie. "Shakespeare and the Languages of of Performance" Electronic Workbook: --------------------------------------------------------------------- These files contains an Electronic Workbook record of the work of "Shakespeare and the Languages of Performance" -- an NEH Seminar that met at the Folger Shakespeare Library from September 1992 through May 1993. PERFORM1 SEMINAR The first part of the Seminar Workbook PERFORM2 SEMINAR The second part of the Seminar Workbook PERFORM3 SEMINAR The third part of the Seminar Workbook PERFORM4 SEMINAR The fourth part of the Seminar Workbook PERFORM5 SEMINAR The fifth part of the Seminar Workbook PERFORM6 SEMINAR The sixth part of the Seminar Workbook PERFORM7 SEMINAR The seventh part of the Seminar Workbook PERFORM8 SEMINAR The eighth part of the Seminar Workbook *Cahiers Elisabethains*: --------------------------------------------------------------------- CAHIERS INDEX Subject Index to the first twenty years of *Cahiers Elisabethains*, volumes 1 to 40 (1972-1991). The index was compiled by Angela R. Maguin and prepared for electronic distribution on SHAKSPER by Luc Borot. Indexes of Previous Discussions: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS INDEX_1 An index to the first year's discussions on SHAKSPER. DISCUSS INDEX_2 An index to the second year's discussions on SHAKSPER. DISCUSS INDEX_3 An index to the third year's discussions on SHAKSPER. DISCUSS INDEX_4 An index to the fourth year's discussions on SHAKSPER. DISCUSS INDEX_5 An index to the fifth year's discussions on SHAKSPER. DISCUSS INDEX_6 An index to the sixth year's discussions on SHAKSPER. DISCUSS INDEX_7 An index to the seventh year's discussions on SHAKSPER. Member File(s) and Retrieval Program: ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHAKSPER BIOGRAFY The first file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-00 BIOGRAFY The second file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-01 BIOGRAFY The third file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-02 BIOGRAFY The fourth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-03 BIOGRAFY The fifth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-04 BIOGRAFY The sixth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-05 BIOGRAFY The seventh file of SHAKSPER member bigraphies. SHAKS-06 BIOGRAFY The eight file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-07 BIOGRAFY The ninth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-08 BIOGRAFY The tenth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-09 BIOGRAFY The eleventh file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-10 BIOGRAFY The twelfth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-11 BIOGRAFY The thirteenth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-12 BIOGRAFY The fourteenth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-13 BIOGRAFY The fifteenth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-14 BIOGRAFY The sixteenth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-15 BIOGRAFY The seventeenth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-16 BIOGRAFY The eighteenth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-17 BIOGRAFY The nineteenth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-18 BIOGRAFY The twentieth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-19 BIOGRAFY The twenty-first file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-20 BIOGRAFY The twenty-second file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-21 BIOGRAFY The twenty-third file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-22 BIOGRAFY The twenty-fourth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-23 BIOGRAFY The twenty-fifth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-24 BIOGRAFY The twenty-sixth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-25 BIOGRAFY The twenty-seventh file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-26 BIOGRAFY The twenty-eighth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-27 BIOGRAFY The twenty-ninth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-28 BIOGRAFY The thirtieth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-29 BIOGRAFY The thirty-first file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-30 BIOGRAFY The thirty-second file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-31 BIOGRAFY The thirty-third file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-32 BIOGRAFY The thirty-fourth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-33 BIOGRAFY The thirty-fifth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-34 BIOGRAFY The thirty-sixth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-35 BIOGRAFY The thirty-seventh file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-36 BIOGRAFY The thirty-eighth file of SHAKSPER member biographies. SHAKS-37 BIOGRAFY The thirty-ninth volume of SHAKSPER biographies. SHAKS-38 BIOGRAFY The fortieth volume of SHAKSPER biographies. SHAKS-39 BIOGRAFY The forty-first volume of SHAKSPER biographies. SHAKS-40 BIOGRAFY The forty-second volume of SHAKSPER biographies. SHAKS-41 BIOGRAFY The forty-third volume of SHAKSPER biographies. SHAKS-42 BIOGRAFY The forty-fourth volume of SHAKSPER biographies. SHAKS-43 BIOGRAFY The forty-fifth volume of SHAKSPER biographies. SHAKS-44 BIOGRAFY The forty-sixth volume of SHAKSPER biographies. SHAKS-45 BIOGRAFY The forty-seventh volume -- in progress. SHAKSPER Logbooks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- All conference transmissions are automatically logged by LISTSERV in rather mechanically-named weekly notebooks. (Originally, logs were monthly.) SHAKSPER LOG9007 July 1990 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9008 August 1990 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9009 September 1990 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9010 October 1990 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9011 November 1990 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9012 December 1990 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9101 January 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9102 February 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9103 March 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9104 April 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9105 May 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9106 June 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9107 July 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9108 August 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9109a First September 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9109b Second September 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9110 October 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9111 November 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9112 December 1991 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9201 January 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9202 February 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9203 March 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9204 April 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9205 May 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9206 June 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9207 July 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9208 August 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9209 September 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9210 October 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9211 November 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9212 December 1992 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9301 January 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9302 February 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9303a First March 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9303b Second March 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9304 April 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9305 May 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9306 June 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9307 July 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9308 August 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9309a First September 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9309b Second September 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9310 October 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9311a First November 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9311b Second November 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9311c Third November 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9311d Fourth November 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9312a First December 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9312b Second December 1993 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9401 First January 1994 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9401e Week Five January 1994 Logbook (SHAKSPER Logs are now available by week with letter indicating the week of the month.) SHAKSPER LOG9402a-d February 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9403a-e March 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9404a-e April 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9405a-e May 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9406a-e June 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9407a-e July 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9408a-e August 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9409a-e September 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9410a-e October 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9411a-e November 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9412a-e December 1994 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9501a-e January 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9502a-e February 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9503a-e March 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9504a-e April 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9505a-e May 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9506a-e June 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9507a-f July 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9508a-f August 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9509a-e September 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9510a-e October 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9511a-e November 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9512a-e December 1995 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9601a-e January 1996 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9602a-e February 1996 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9603a-e March 1996 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9604a-e April 1996 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9605a-e May 1996 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9606a-e June 1996 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9607a-e July 1996 Logbooks SHAKSPER LOG9608a-e August 1996 Logbooks Please note that when logs are identified as SHAKSPER LOG9601a-e, they must be ordered on separate lines reading as follows: GET SHAKSPER LOG9602a GET SHAKSPER LOG9602b GET SHAKSPER LOG9602c GET SHAKSPER LOG9602d GET SHAKSPER LOG9602e ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 06:13:59 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0611 Q: Play Logs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0611. Tuesday, 13 August 1996. From: Michelle Bishop Date: Monday, 12 Aug 1996 11:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Q: Play Logs] I was asked a question on IRC yesterday that I had no answer for... but it did intrigue me so I thought I would ask those who would know... How would one go about finding a log of all the productions of a play... namely a Shakespearean play? If anyone can help fulfill my curiosity and answer a friends question I would really appreciate it... Michelle Bishop========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 07:00:05 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0612 Re: Play Logs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0612. Wednesday, 14 August 1996. From: Michael Mullin Date: Tuesday, 13 Aug 1996 09:27:35 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0611 Q: Play Logs For the Stratford-upon-Avon productions, see my *Theatre at Stratford-upon- Avon, A Catalogue Index to Productions, 1879-1978 and 1978-1993*, Greenwood Press, 3 vols. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 07:35:41 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0613 CFP: 16th Waterloo International Conference Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0613. Friday, 16 August 1996. From: Lynne Magnusson Date: Thursday, 15 Aug 1996 17:08:01 -0400 Subject: Elizabethan Theatre Conference CALL FOR PAPERS 16th Waterloo International Conference on Elizabethan Theatre Special topic: THEATRE AND NATION 21-25 July 1997 The 16th Waterloo International Conference on Elizabethan Theatre will be held at the University of Waterloo, July 21-25, 1997. The conference topic will be "Theatre and Nation." Short papers with a clearly articulated connection to the topic are solicited to supplement a programme of invited addresses. Please be aware that the spaces reserved for short papers are limited. Submissions, not exceeding 10 pages, should be sent by February 1, 1997 to Lynne Magnusson or Ted McGee Department of English University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 CANADA. Phone: (519)885-1211, ext. 2759 or (519)884-8110, ext. 280 FAX: (519)746-5788 E-mail: LMAGNUSS@watarts.uwaterloo.ca ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 07:38:02 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0614 Q: Electronic Texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0614. Friday, 16 August 1996. From: Lawrence Manley Date: Thursday, 15 Aug 1996 10:50:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Electronic Texts Can anyone offer an update on searchable Shakespeare texts? I'd be especially interested in anyone with experience of the Shakespeare Database Project CD-ROM, coming out of the University of Muenster, directed by Prof. J. Joachim Neuhaus. I know this subject comes up from time to time, but is this a good time for a comprehensive and up-to-date discussion, or is such available elsewhere? Lawrence Manley Yale University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 07:44:37 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0615 Re: Folio as Acting Script Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0615. Friday, 16 August 1996. From: Don Weingust Date: Wednesday, 14 Aug 1996 22:22:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0606 Re: Folio as Acting Script Patrick Tucker does seem the most ardent proponent of F1 as acting script. Neil Freeman in B.C. has also written a text on the subject, and brought his work to companies, academic institutions and conferences. Look for a forthcoming text from Patrick Tucker, published by Routledge. Patrick's contempt for academics only runs so deep (he holds a graduate degree from an American university), but he does get a good deal of mileage out of it, particularly with students. Patrick's work is very compelling, and his methods are particularly powerful in opening up student actors to the possibilities of the text. His techniques give young actors both license and form within which they may explore. I am particularly interested in hearing from editors and others the scholarly arguments against this set of techniques, as well as the results of John Senczuk's experiments. I have heard a verse instructor refer to the "Cambridge School," as a supposed earlier variant on the present subject. Can anyone provide more detailed reference? Thanks, Don Weingust Dramatic Art, UC Berkeley dw@uclink.berkeley.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 13:02:53 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0616 Re: Folio as Acting Script Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0616. Monday, 19 August 1996. From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 17 Aug 96 17:59:29 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0615 Re: Folio as Acting Script Don Weingust wrote >Patrick [Tucker's] work is very compelling, and his methods are >particularly powerful in opening up student actors to the >possibilities of the text. His techniques give young actors >both license and form within which they may explore. I am >particularly interested in hearing from editors and others >the scholarly arguments against this set of techniques, as >well as the results of John Senczuk's experiments. There are, to my knowledge, two fundamentally flawed beliefs underlying Tucker's work: 1. For each play in the Shakespeare F1, Heminges and Condell chose from amongst the available documents the one that best represented how the play was performed by the company. The process of printing preserved many of the acting cues present in these documents, for example the capitalization of words the actor has to stress. 2. There were no rehearsals and each actor turned up for the first performance having learned the 'part' given to them. This 'part' was their own lines plus the cues indicating when to speak. Proposition 1 indicates that Tucker does not know the current scholarly consensus on the editing and printing of F1. It's just plain ignorance. Proposition 2 is an implausible theory and there is evidence against it. For example the text of Henslowe's binding of Robert Dawes is extant and Chambers reprints it (ES2:255-7). This contract specifies the penalties Dawes must pay for missing rehearsals ("which shall be the night before the rehearsall be given publickly out"). I know of no evidence supporting Tucker's claim. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 13:08:56 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0617 Q: Early Modern Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0617. Monday, 19 August 1996. From: David Middleton Date: Monday, 19 Aug 1996 11:59:13 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Q: Early Modern] Can someone help me to define the conceptual limits of the phrase "early modern?" What political or social facts mark the beginning and the end of that period, as the phrase is currently being used? Thanks very much. David Middleton@ Trinity University========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 18:28:58 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0618 Q; Interpreting Merchant of Venice Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0618. Friday, 23 August 1996. From: Albert Messeldine Date: Monday, 19 Aug 1996 14:27:58 -0400 Subject: Q; Interpreting Merchant of Venice A question led to a larger problem in a class discussion of Merchant of Venice, and I'd appreciate some help. The question: why does Shakespeare have Antonio say so clearly at the beginning of the play that his whole estate is not at venture, when clearly it is (because when his ships are wrecked, he cannot cover his debt). Thinking of this led to another comment. Antonio tells Bassanio that he expects much more than 3000 ducats "a month before the bond expires" and repeats this thought at the end of the scene - "my ships come home a month before the day." Thus we can assume that, since the wrecking (or apparent wrecking) of his ships must have happened some time before he expected them home, he had more than a month to raise the 3000 ducats before his bond fell due. Antonio, the much loved Merchant of Venice, has six weeks to raise 3000 ducats, and can't do it to save his life? These comments led to other comments. Perhaps (it was suggested) Antonio is lying to Salarino and Salanio so that he will appear a better business-man than he really is, and he is lying to Bassanio to (falsely) reassure him about the loan and the bond. And, as you can imagine, we plunge into all kinds of psychological speculations about Antonio. The larger problem this leads to is how strictly we can hold Shakespeare to realistic standards. I know in Hamlet, for example, Horatio sometimes talks as if he knows Old Hamlet quite well, and other times not, and we happily ignore these discrepancies. However, the debt thing in MV seems more central. Cheers. A Misseldine ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 18:39:55 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0619 The New Globe Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0619. Friday, 23 August 1996. (1) From: Mike Field Date: Monday, 19 Aug 1996 16:51:55 Subj: Reconstructed Globe (2) From: Matt DeCoursey Date: Thursday, 22 Aug 1996 13:52:43 BST Subj: First Performance at Reconstructed Globe Theatre (3) From: Stephen Miller Date: Friday, 23 Aug 1996 15:02:30 -0400 Subj: The New Globe Last Night (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Field Date: Monday, 19 Aug 1996 16:51:55 -0400 Subject: Reconstructed Globe As I recall, this summer was to see the premiere of the recreated Globe theater in London. I further recall that Shennandoah Shakespeare Express was to perform there. Has this happened? Is there anyone out there who has either seen or participated in a daylight production at the recreated Globe? How does the stage "play" in terms of movement and actor-to-audience interaction? Do the groundlings stand throughout? What kind of energy--or distraction--does this bring to performance? I'd love to hear comments, on or off list. Mike Field (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matt DeCoursey Date: Thursday, 22 Aug 1996 13:52:43 BST Subject: First Performance at Reconstructed Globe Theatre Last night's opening performance at the New Globe was a crowd-pleaser. The groundlings were feeling happy when they came in the door, comparing notes about their interviews with the press in the queue. They milled around, greeted their friends, waved to acquaintances in the galleries. When two photographers climbed on the stage to take the audience's picture, there was good-natured booing and "get off, get off." When they did get off, they got a round of applause. The theatre, though uncompleted, is atmospheric. The tiring-house is a temporary one, apparently made of painted flats. There is, however, a second level that was used during the show. Before the play began, we could see the orchestra's instruments: modern ones, including a drumkit and a bass. The play, *Two Gentlemen of Verona*, turned out to be in modern dress. The more aristcratic characters wear Italian suits and sip espresso at cafe tables. The audience was at first subdued, but warmed to its role as commentator as the show progressed, encouraged by the actors. When Proteus (Mark Rylance) hesitates to kiss Julia on parting, a friendly voice urged him to "Go on, my son." When Speed (Ben Walden) says of Proteus, "My master is some kind of a knave," the audience evinced agreement. The modern dress was disappointing to a Renaissance specialist like myself, but it may be that it aided the interaction between audience and actors that was the main charm of this production. The cast was multiracial, with two black actors, including Valentine, and one Indian. The effect was to import modern London into the theatre: an effect I rather liked. If the costumes had been Elizabethan, would the audience have held its breath and revered the Great Bard in silence? That would have been more disappointing. This first performance was in the evening, with full-spectrum floodlights constantly on. This afternoon, I will be going to the first matinee, on which I will report tomorrow. Matt DeCoursey Catholic University of America (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Miller Date: Friday, 23 Aug 1996 15:02:30 -0400 Subject: The New Globe Last Night London New Globe Theatre - prologue season 23 August 1996 With a friend I went along as a groundling to the second night of the 'prologue' season at the Globe Theatre on the South Bank in London. We tried too late to book for the first night which was sold out. The official Opening Festival is scheduled for June of next year, labelled "A Fanfare of Firsts". During this August and September, in addition to a series of performances by the new company of The Two Gentlemen of Verona, a touring Midsummer Night's Dream by Northern Broadsides stops by for one night on 3 Sep. Particularly interesting to students of the period should be the initial production of the 'Rarely Played' series. As I understand, one-off productions are to be mounted at the Globe of plays rarely done, beginning with Damon and Pythias done by an all-female cast. That should be on 10 September. Last night brought an interested audience, some of them rather grander and older than might be expected. They seemed attentive and willing to laugh. The new production by Jack Shephard ran nearly 3 hours. Costumes were modern with a few minimal cafe tables plus more substantial furniture for the duke brought out from the central opening which has a sliding door. Two side doors resemble the DeWitt drawing. The new stage is considered a temporary trial structure to precede a permanent stage. Certainly it is substantial, and the colourful painting of the columns (red) and the painting of the fons as a rusticated wall is not especially subtle. The second level of the back wall is a large open gallery with a clutch of musicians in the centre. (Why not keep the idea of a stage that could be redesigned experimentally since so little is known of the appearance of the original?) Groundlings stand on a sort of tarmac surface, perhaps slightly raked for drainage. Not too many were crowded in. To my thinking the space of the new Globe is agreeable, almost intimate, whereas the stage seems surprisingly large. The fixed lighting required for evening performances is bright. Strong speaking voices are a must for actors, particularly with late evening jets going overhead, and yes, when there is rain, the heads of those standing in the pit really do get wet, even those standing near the eaves. Notable among the cast were Mark Rylance (artistic director of the New Globe) as Proteus, reminiscent of his Benedick a few years ago, the best I have seen, and Anastasia Hille as Sylvia. Lennie James made a strong Valentine. I had heard that audience members in the 'new' theatre would be encouraged to participate, though the only notable example I noticed was a woman who asked Launce, when he entered in a late scene without Crab, 'Where's your dog?' He did not respond. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 18:47:09 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0620 Re: Folio as Acting Script; Q: Neil Freeman scripts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0620. Friday, 23 August 1996. (1) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Monday, 19 Aug 1996 20:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0616 Re: Folio as Acting Script (2) From: Don Weingust Date: Thursday, 22 Aug 1996 13:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0616 Re: Folio as Acting Script (3) From: Chris Gordon Date: Wednesday, 21 Aug 96 18:24:06 -0500 Subj: Query: Neil Freeman scripts (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Monday, 19 Aug 1996 20:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0616 Re: Folio as Acting Script Though I've never worked with Tucker, I have worked with Freeman. While I was never entirely convinced by the historical accounts used as background to a practice of exploiting typesetting details by way of forcing a fuller consideration of the text's surface play, they aren't really necessary. The real issue is not the insoluble, "Did Shakespeare indicate acting decisions for his players in the details of these texts?" but rather, "Will *we* suspend our disbelief long enough to use un-normalized texts in workshopping and performing?" I know that my (still rather sketchy) acting improved significantly on using these sorts of details to disturb the surface of the text, and open possibilities within it. Cheers, Sean. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Weingust Date: Thursday, 22 Aug 1996 13:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0616 Re: Folio as Acting Script Thanks to Gabriel Egan for comments. Re: the scholarly consensus on the editing and printing of F1, I would appreciate hearing of any specific works you'd care to recommend as particularly illuminating. Tucker finds less problematic the compositorial inconsistencies, for example, than he does the four-hundred-year tradition of editorial improvement. Those improvements, Tucker argues, make it much more difficult for actors to successfully accomplish the text work one must when confronting these plays. Re: the subject of rehearsal, Tucker doesn't argue that there was no rehearsal whatsoever, but that like references to the concept in the available literature, it was scant indeed. Such reference includes "rehearsal" as a run-through for the purpose of censorial approval, fairly removed from what we would think of as rehearsal today. Perhaps a contemporary cognate might be daytime soap-opera, where the time alloted rehearsal is minimal, a good deal of direction is built into the text, and there is a fair bit of convention in the style of playing. Tucker not only relies upon evidence about the enormous rigor and wide variety of the performance/memorization schedule (leaving little if any room for formal rehearsal), but the simple fact that neither Shakespeare nor his sharers stood to earn a penny on the boards without an audience. Are there references to this subject in the scholarly literature where the performance issues surrounding F1 are taken up in any detail, rather than simply dismissed? Continued thanks. Don Weingust weingust@uclink.berkeley.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Gordon Date: Wednesday, 21 Aug 96 18:24:06 -0500 Subject: Query: Neil Freeman scripts I know this subject has been discussed in the past, but I thought the quickest way to get information would be to ask. Does anyone have the address to which to write for printed and electronic versions of the Shakespeare texts that Neil Freeman has produced? I know he is at UBC and I tried e-mailing him there, but the message was bounced back. I'm looking for _Coriolanus_ in particular; any and all assistance is appreciated. You can e-mail me directly at gordo003@maroon.tc.umn.edu Thanks! --Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 18:49:55 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0621 CFP: EMLS: Literature and Geography Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0621. Friday, 23 August 1996. From: Joanne Woolway Date: Tuesday, 20 Aug 1996 21:58:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: CFP: EMLS: Literature and Geography This announcement will be cross-posted - please excuse duplication. Submissions are invited for a collection of essays on Renaissance Literature and Geography to be edited by Richard Helgerson and Joanne Woolway. The collection will grow out of a panel which has been accepted for presentation at the Modern Languages Association Conference this December and will be published initially as a special issue of Early Modern Literary Studies. We hope that the collection will also be published in conventional paper format afterwards. Papers of approximately 5000-9000 words should deal with any aspect of the interrelation of literature and geography in the period 1500-1700, including cartography, landscape depiction, ideas of culture and place, perspective, book illustration, or the formation of the disciplines. The deadline for submissions is 1 June 1997. As this collection will be published electronically, illustrations, hypertextual links to other resources, or moving images are especially welcomed. Papers should be sent on disk, with accompanying material, if appropriate, to Joanne Woolway, Oriel College, Oxford, OX1 4EW, England . Joanne Woolway Associate Editor, EMLS ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 18:52:11 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0622 Q: Edward III Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0622. Friday, 23 August 1996. From: Lim Lee Ching Date: Friday, 23 Aug 1996 12:44:41 +0800 (SGT) Subject: Edward III I heard last night on the BBC World Service radio about evidence(s) that may finally attribute the authorship of _(The Reign of King) Edward III_ to Shakespeare. Someone called Prof Eric Sands (???) was involved with the findings. This is all very new to me and I was half asleep when I heard it. Can anyone offer some background regarding the play? Are there any existing evidence supporting such an attribution, and would such evidence be purely statistical? And given the current interest in the F.E. (and what little I know about the analytical methods surrounding it), I'm curious as to what SHAXICON *might* reveal about _Edward III_. Anyone? Lim Lee Ching Singapore ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 08:22:28 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0623 Re: *Edward III* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0623. Sunday, 25 August 1996. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 23 Aug 1996 23:37:24 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0622 Q: Edward III Yes, Eric Sams has completed an edition of *Edward III* with commentary, and, as I recall, Yale UP will be the publisher. There is a good deal of internal evidence suggesting that Shakespeare had a hand in the play. I attach a brief bibliography of some work relevant to the question: Bradbrook, Muriel C. Shakespeare and Elizabethan Poetry. London: Chatto and Windus, 1951. 209-210. "The unity of theme in Edward III and its similarity to that of Henry V does not seem to have been recognized" (209). Dobson, Willis Boring. Edward the Third: A Study of the Composition of the Play in Relation to Its Sources. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Texas, Austin, 1956. [From Bethany Nazene College, Bethany, OK] Everitt, E. B. and R. L. Armstrong. Six Early Plays Related to the Shakespeare Canon. Anglistica XIV. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1965. Edward III, ed. R. L. Armstrong, 195-250. I use this modernized text and its line numbers. I change Armstrong's "Audeley" to "Audley" as does Tucker Brooke. Galway, Margaret. "Joan of Kent and the Order of the Garter," Univ. of Birmingham Historical Review 1 (1947): 36-40. Which countess was it, anyway? Gransden, Antonia. "The alleged rape by Edward III of the countess [sic] of Salisbury," English Historical Review 87 (1972):333-344. The story apparently begins with Jean de Bel, Chronique de Jean le Bel, ed. J. Viard, and may be French propaganda. Le Bel called the countess "Alice" (335). In one poem, Artois is blamed; see B.J. Whiting, Speculum 20 (1945): 261-78. On Artois, see H. S. Lucas, The Low Countries and the Hundred Years' War (1929): 124. Horn, Frederick David. The Raigne of King Edward the Third: A Critical Edition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Delaware, 1969. (MUI - 69-21, 946) Hoy, Cyrus. "Renaissance and Restoration Dramatic Plotting," Renaissance Drama 9 (1966): 247-264. Jackson, MacD. P. "A Note on the Text of 'Edward III'," Notes and Queries 216 (1971): 453-4. Jackson, MacD. P. "'Edward III,' Shakespeare, and Pembroke's Men," Notes and Queries 210 (1965): 329-31. Koskenniemi, Inna. "Themes and Imagery in Edward III," Neuphilologische Mittielungen 65 (1964): 446-80. Kozlenko, William. Disputed Plays of William Shakespeare. New York: Hawthorn, 1974. Reproduces the text edited by Henry Tyrrell (London, 1860). Plagiarizes Muir's work as an introduction. Lapides, Fred, ed. The Raigne of King Edward the Third: A Critical, Old-Spelling Edition. Renaissance Drama, A Collection of Critical Editions. New York: Garland, 1980. With a thorough introduction and notes. Mann, Francis Oscar, ed. The Works of Thomas Deloney. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912. Melchiori, Giorgio. Shakespeare's Dramatic Meditations: An Experiment in Criticism. Oxford, Clarendon: 1976. 42-47, 57-59, etc. Argues that "Sonnet 94 - and a good number of the others - were written after and not before Edward III" (45), and notes another parallel between the play and the sonnets (I.ii.95-97, and Sonnet 18.3). Metz, G. Harold, ed. Sources of Four Plays Ascribed to Shakespeare: The Reign of King Edward III, Sir Thomas More, The History of Cardenio, The Two Noble Kinsmen. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1989. Thoroughly reviews the scholarship on the play (3-42). Regarding authorship, he concludes that the traces of Shakespeare's "work in the second part of the play . . . are not quite sufficient as a basis for the claim that he is the sole author of Edward III" (20). Muir, Kenneth. The Sources of Shakespeare's Plays. London: Methuen, 1977. Muir, Kenneth. Shakespeare as Collaborator. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1960. 10-55. Notes parallels with Shakespeare's undoubted work, and believes one theory would cover all the facts: "Shakespeare . . . was hastily revising a play by another dramatist" (30). Osterberg, V. "The 'Countess Scenes' of Edward III," SJ 65 (1929): 49-91. Links between Edward III and Shakespeare's undoubted work. Pratt, Samuel M. "Edward III and the Countess of Salisbury: A Study in Values." University of Mississippi Studies in English, 4 (1983): 33-48. Notes Deloney's poem but doesn't see the importance of the poem for dating the play. Proudfoot, Richard. "The Reign of King Edward the Third (1596) and Shakespeare," Proceedings of the British Academy 71 (1985):169-85. Riggs, David. Shakespeare's Heroical Histories: Henry VI and Its Literary Tradition. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1971. Rutherford, Vera Randolph. "The Play of Edward III: Its Sources, Structure, and Possible Authorship." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, 1927. Schaar, Claes. Elizabethan Sonnet Themes and the Dating of Shakespeare's Sonnets. Lund, 1962. 117-35. Slater, Eliot. The Problem of The Reign of King Edward III: A Statistical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Smith, Robert Metcalf. Froissart and the English Chronicle Play. New York: Columbia University Press, 1915. Tillyard, E. M. W. Shakespeare's History Plays. 1944; London: Chatto & Windus, 1959. 111-14. E3 is "one of the most academic and intellectual of the Chronicle Plays" (111). The "unifying principle of the play" is "the education of . . . Edward III and the Black Prince" (113). The play is "the most steadily thoughtful of all the Chronicle Plays outside Shakespeare" (114). Tucker Brooke, C. F., ed. The Shakespeare Apocrypha. Oxford: Clarendon, 1908. Warnke, Karl and Ludwig Proescholdt, ed. Pseudo-Shakespearian Plays. Revised ed. Vol. III: King Edward III. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1886. Wentersdorf, Karl. The Authorship of Edward III. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1960. Wentersdorf, Karl. "The Date of Edward III," Shakespeare Quarterly 16 (1965): 227-31. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 08:28:46 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0624 Re: Interpreting Merchant of Venice Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0624. Sunday, 25 August 1996. (1) From: Michael Conner Date: Saturday, 24 Aug 1996 21:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0618 Q; Interpreting Merchant of Venice (2) From: Jacob Goldberg Date: Saturday, 24 Aug 1996 16:18:25 -0400 Subj: Interpreting Merchant of Venice (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Conner Date: Saturday, 24 Aug 1996 21:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0618 Q; Interpreting Merchant of Venice I always took Antonio to mean that his entire estate was not at risk because his investments were so diversified, Tripolis, Indies, Mexico and England, that it was extremely unlikely that he would be lose his entire fortune and that he would easily be able to repay the bond. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacob Goldberg Date: Saturday, 24 Aug 1996 16:18:25 -0400 Subject: Interpreting Merchant of Venice Re: Interpreting Merchant of Venice (8/19/96): When expressing several comments on Shakespeare and his Shylock (SHK 7.0428), I suggested a reason why Shakespeare, needing, for the purpose of the story, to leave Antonio at Shylock's mercy, made it quite clear, as Albert Messeldine points out, that there should have been little financial reason for doing so: (1) he was a wealthy merchant, (2) he was not only liked, he was *well-liked*, (3) all of his wealth was not at sea, and (4) he had plenty of time to raise the 3000 ducats before D-Day (due date). Shakespeare was being covertly critical of the Christian community of Venice. When Antonio needed the money and had no ready cash, he sent Bassanio out to see how good his (Antonio's ) credit was. Bassanio was unable to find even one Christian colleague of Antonio who would loan him the money! Granted that such a loan would have to be interest-free, but what of that? And when Shylock agreed to the loan, he could legally have taken interest but did not. The insertion of the pound of flesh into the contract instead of an interest rate was a means of humilating Antonio who found himself forced to accept a favor from the Jew, that is, a loan without interest. No one at this time could envisage that (1) Antonio could lose ALL of his land-locked and seaborne wealth and (2) not a single Christian would come to Antonio's aid if he needed it. Shakespeare did not have to surround Antonio with a city of Christians who were unwilling to loan money to a fellow-Christian and who were unwilling to loan (or give) the 3000 ducats to save the life of a fellow-Christian. Why did Shakespeare do it? I think that Shakespeare, while catering to the religious (not racial) anti-Semitism of the crowd by finally picturing Shylock as the murderous Jew, made sure that the Jew acted. in the matter of the loan, as the Christians should have done - and could have done. The picture of the Christians in MV, with the possible exception of Portia, is not a flattering one. I don't think that Shakespeare intended it to be. Jacob Goldberg ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 08:31:11 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0625 Nike Commercial Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0625. Sunday, 25 August 1996. From: Gregory Kramer Date: Friday, 23 Aug 1996 21:07:17 -0500 Subject: [Nike Commercial] I'm sure some have seen the Nike commercial where the Vince Lombardi character, resembling God, says "Shakespeare, Shut your piehole! lets play football" I think it is a quite funny. I wonder how Lombardi and and the Bard would have got along. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 05:54:28 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0626 Q: *MacHomer* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0626. Monday, 26 August 1996. From: Janet MacLellan Date: Sunday, 25 Aug 1996 12:02:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Edmonton Fringe Festival In a feature on the Edmonton Fringe Festival in this Saturday's Globe and Mail, Chris Dafoe writes: One of the big hits of the festival is _MacHomer_, Montrealer Rick Miller's one-man version of _Macbeth_ as it would be performed by the Simpsons. One's mind reels with the possibilities. Barney as the drunken porter? Flanders as MacDuff? ("What, all my pretty chickens and their dam / At one fell swoopily-doopily?) Edmontonion Shakspereans, have you seen this gem? Please report. Thanks in advance, Janet MacLellan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 06:02:42 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0627 Re: Merchant of Venice and Revenge; *Edward III* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0627. Monday, 26 August 1996. (1) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Sunday, 25 Aug 1996 12:22:34 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0624 Re: Merchant of Venice and Revenge (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 25 Aug 1996 14:33:24 -0400 Subj: Ed III (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Sunday, 25 Aug 1996 12:22:34 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0624 Re: Merchant of Venice and Revenge The following statement by Francis Douce, in his *Illustrations of Shakspeare,...* 1807 is worth noting, I think, though it is not related to the point about Antonio's inability to repay the debt: Douce says, "It is much to be lamented that this equisitely beautiful drama can neither be read nor performed, without exciting in every humane and liberal mind an abhorrence of its professed design to vilify an ancient and respectable, but persecuted, nation. It should be remembered that contempt and intolerance must naturally excite hatred; that to proke revenge is, in fact, to become responsible for the crimes it may occasion; that to those who would degrade and oppress us, it is but justice to oppose craft; and that nature has supplied even the brute creation with the means of resisting persecution. It will be readily conceded that there happily exist in the present moment but few remains of the illiberal prejudices complained of, the asterity of which has been greatly mitigated by the laudable and successful exertions of a modern dramatic writer, to whom the Jewish people are under the highest obligation" (1:292). Does anyone know who this "modern dramatic writer" might be? Bernice W. Kliman (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 25 Aug 1996 14:33:24 -0400 Subject: Ed III I missed E. Pearlman's "Edward III in Henry V" in Criticism,1995. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 06:08:24 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0628 Q: Linguistic Studies Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0628. Monday, 26 August 1996. From: Norm Holland Date: Sunday, 25 Aug 96 16:05:56 EDT Subject: Q: Linguistic Studies Can anyone point me to recent work developing Shakespeare's linguistic choices (understood through a 20C grammatical system) or, perhaps, his choice of rhetorical tropes such as synecdoche or metonymy? I'm particularly interested in A&C. I'm also particularly interested in any such books are articles with a psychological focus, but you can't have everything. Anything on syntactical choices would be helpful. I'm familiar with works in this area by Sister Miriam Joseph John Houston S. S. Hussey Dolores Burton N. F. Blake Lynn de Gerenday Can anyone suggest other books or periodical literature? I'd be most grateful. Please reply to me directly unless you think your remarks would be of interest to all subscribers to this list. Again, thank you. --Best, Norm Holland ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 12:51:47 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0629 Nashville *JC* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0629. Tuesday, 27 August 1996. From: Kay Campbell Pilzer <0002031324@mcimail.com> Date: Monday, 26 Aug 96 10:27 EST Subject: Nashville *JC* Well, it wasn't the Globe, but we did have airplanes overhead! Nashville's free park performance this summer presents an election-year *JC* in suits, complete with Secret Service men, and a real-time video camera link to the paraparrazi/journalists who are recording the events as they happen in front of a fairly conventional columns-and-bunting set. This adds a different twist to Caesar's question, "who in the press calls for me?" as he tried to spot the (homeless) soothsayer, who calls to him from the audience. Cassius is a woman--played by Denice Hicks with an intense, deadly, and frantic earnestness. Her relationship with Brutus stays strictly business, but with a nice undercurrent of repressed attraction, I thought. Her being a woman makes for a couple nice moments, such as when Caesar says of her, "She thinks too much. Such women are dangerous." Various others of the senators are women, too--who seem to play the most active and vicious roles in the asassination (gratuitous stabbings after Caesar has fallen, etc.). Artemidorus is a woman, and seems to be an ex-lover of Caesar--all the more reason for him to ignore her helpful missive in public. Cinna the poet is also a woman, in a moment as close to levity as this deadly serious play ever got. It was either the humidity or the production, but I felt quite coated with earnestness when it ended. The riots after Mark Antony's speech (played with a slimey effectiveness by Gary Lowery) are augmented by video clips (on the big screen behind the stage) of the riots at the '68 Demo Convention. That, and the interesting doubling of the public scenes as we saw them before us, but also as they were made into the media event on the screen, were the most interesting innovations. Mark Antony uses news clips of the assasination during his speech, running through it once and then reversing it to freeze the frame at the point at which Caesar says "Et tu" to Brutus. The generals also use the video screen as a slide screen for reviewing war plans and the like. Caesar's campaign portrait, in this way, accidentally pops up as Brutus is reviewing war maps, and melts into a video that talks to him. Mark Antony's last speech over Brutus's body ("This was the noblest Roman...") is, in this way, specifically put as a photo-op moment. He ends his speech, looks sorrowfully into space for a moment, then motions for the camera to cut, and puts the body down quite efficiently. Certainly worth the price of admission (it's free), if not a little more (I gave a donation). Continues on Aug. 30 and 31, if anyone will be in the Southland. The production is by The Nashville Shakespeare Festival in collaboration with Mockingbird Public Theater. In Centennial Park off West End Avenue, beginning at 7:30. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 12:56:11 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0630 Re: *MV* and *Edward III* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0630. Tuesday, 27 August 1996. (1) From: Kay J. Wade Date: Monday, 26 Aug 1996 08:34:00 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0624 Re: Interpreting Merchant of Venice (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 26 Aug 1996 22:55:30 -0400 Subj: Edward III (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kay J. Wade Date: Monday, 26 Aug 1996 08:34:00 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0624 Re: Interpreting Merchant of Venice Jacob Goldberg says: >The picture of the Christians in MV, with the possible exception >of Portia, is not a flattering one. I don't think that Shakespeare >intended it to be. I don't think Portia is meant to be an exception. Recall that despite her lovely speech about mercy, it is she who insists on justice, justice, justice for the rest of the scene. She says, "As thou urgest justice, be assured thou shalt have justice, more than thou desirest." From then on the only time the word mercy crosses her lips is when she is making Shylock grovel. As usual, Shakespeare leaves us to draw our own lessons. But once you stop being mesmerised by the power of that one speech and try to measure her against it, you see a different Portia. However hard you look, you cannot find her offering to Shylock the mercy that she so eloquently preached. At one time or another, she had said, we all have to pray for mercy, and that teaches us to render it as well. She talks a good game, but I wouldn't like my fate to rest in her hands. Kay Wade (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 26 Aug 1996 22:55:30 -0400 Subject: Edward III John Lavagnino sends me the following addition: > If you're trying to track down absolutely everything about > Edward III, you might add "The Oxford Shakespeare Re-Viewed by the > General Editors", by Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor, in Analytical and > Enumerative Bibliography NS 4:1 (1990), 6-20. At 17-18 they talk > about why they didn't include Edward III although by 1990 it seemed > clear to them that they should have. Yours, Bill Godshalk========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 05:46:45 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0631 Re: Nashville *JC*; Linguistic Studies; *MacHomer* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0631. Wednesday, 28 August 1996. (1) From: Tom Bishop ,tgb2@po.CWRU.Edu. Date: Tuesday, 27 Aug 1996 15:30:12 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0629 Nashville *JC* (2) From: Juhani Rudanko Date: Tuesday, 27 Aug 1996 15:08:38 +0300 (EET DST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0628 Q: Linguistic Studies (3) From: Ken Brown Date: Tuesday, 27 Aug 1996 06:26:23 -0600 (MDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0626 Q: *MacHomer* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Bishop ,tgb2@po.CWRU.Edu. Date: Tuesday, 27 Aug 1996 15:30:12 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0629 Nashville *JC* >Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0629. Tuesday, 27 August 1996. > >From: Kay Campbell Pilzer <0002031324@mcimail.com> >Date: Monday, 26 Aug 96 10:27 EST >Subject: Nashville *JC* In a remarkable example of cultural convergence, the recently reported Nashville "Julius Caesar" production has reproduced almost all the tricks I recall from the Melbourne simulacrum I recently reported on through these very netwaves, except that in the Antipodes it was Antony, not Cassius, who was a woman, and the soothsayer was an -indigenous- homelessperson. In other news, those in the Cleveland area have a rare chance to see a modern equivalent of a medieval cycle-play this weekend, when Rev. Ernest Angely's Grace Cathedral in Akron will be performing their production of "Jacob and Joseph", a 3-hour extravaganza with a cast of 250, the script given to the Reverend, as he avers, by the Lord himself, apparently along with the musical numbers. The TV clips promise a wealth of enjoyment, though some of it alas may have to be covert. I am particularly looking forward to the scene where Joseph loses a piece of his garment to the clutches of Potiphar's scheming wife, who resembles one of the wilder villainesses from daytime soap gone to town in Aida's wardrobe. Veritably, not to be missed. I note also this week, in Shakespeare round-up, that a translation of "Hamlet" into the Klingon tongue, with extensive notes by the translator, is now available from the Klingon Language Institute in PA. Have you got your copy yet? Some people have way too much time on their hands.... Cheers, Tom (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juhani Rudanko Date: Tuesday, 27 Aug 1996 15:08:38 +0300 (EET DST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0628 Q: Linguistic Studies At the risk of being accused of self-promotion, I would like to mention my book Pragmatic Approaches to Shakespeare (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993), in response to the query about linguistic studies of Shakespeare. The book discusses and develops a range of 20C linguistic methods, including case grammar analysis, speech act theory, and conversation analysis, and applies such methods to Othello, Coriolanus, and Timon of Athens. (A review of the book, by Nanette Jaynes, is found in the Summer 1995 issue of The Shakespeare Bulletin, 1995, p. 47.) Juhani Rudanko (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Brown Date: Tuesday, 27 Aug 1996 06:26:23 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0626 Q: *MacHomer* >In a feature on the Edmonton Fringe Festival in this Saturday's Globe and Mail, >Chris Dafoe writes: > > One of the big hits of the festival is _MacHomer_, Montrealer > Rick Miller's one-man version of _Macbeth_ as it would be > performed by the Simpsons. > >One's mind reels with the possibilities. Barney as the drunken porter? Flanders >as MacDuff? ("What, all my pretty chickens and their dam / At one fell >swoopily-doopily?) > >Edmontonion Shakspereans, have you seen this gem? Please report. Actually, no, I didn't. Our own show, a four-actor adaptation of Fielding's "Joseph Andrews" kept me fairly busy, but I can report that it was THE pop hit of the festival, largely due, I understand, to the performer's warm stage presence and verbal gymnastics. He uses 54 different voices, apparently. I'm hoping to catch the show in "holdover week," that post-Fringe phenom. in which the performers who misses everybody else's work get to try to catch up. Ken Brown THEATrePUBLIC ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 05:57:48 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0632 *MV* -- Q: Scholarly Opinion; Modern Writer Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0632. Wednesday, 28 August 1996. (1) From: Mason West Date: Tuesday, 27 Aug 1996 14:20:39 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0630 Re: *MV* and *Edward III* (2) From: David M Richman Date: Tuesday, 27 Aug 1996 10:13:10 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0627 Re: Merchant of Venice and Revenge; *Edward III* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mason West Date: Tuesday, 27 Aug 1996 14:20:39 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0630 Re: *MV* and *Edward III* Hello -- The question of Shakespeare's attitude toward Shylock arises at a serendipitous moment for me. Kay J. Wade writes: I don't think Portia is meant to be an exception. Recall that despite her lovely speech about mercy, it is she who insists on justice, justice, justice for the rest of the scene. She says, "As thou urgest justice, be assured thou shalt have justice, more than thou desirest." From then on the only time the word mercy crosses her lips is when she is making Shylock grovel. As usual, Shakespeare leaves us to draw our own lessons... We have recently agreed to disagree over the question of Shylock in a somewhat hot-tempered debate in a literary list called Prufrock that I operate on the Internet. I defended Shakespeare, saying that his intentions were to shed light on the prejudices of his times, but others argued that Shakespeare was unquestionably an anti-Semitic bigot. I also argued that, were Shakespeare as aligned with the officially sanctioned anti-Semitism of Elizabethan England as his detractors claimed, he would not have needed to be so oblique. I am curious about the range of opinions is in scholarly circles. According to contemporary scholarship, is it foregone that Shakespeare (was/was not) anti-Semitic or, for that matter, in reference to Othello (which I invoked to defend my point), a racist? -- Mason West (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Tuesday, 27 Aug 1996 10:13:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0627 Re: Merchant of Venice and Revenge; *Edward III* The modern writer to whom the Jewish people should be indebted may be Lessing whose humane play "Nathan the Wise" promotes tolerance and understanding among the world's three great religions. I don't recall the exact date of the play, but I believe it to be 18th century, second half. David Richman ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 07:04:53 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0633 Re: Nashville *JC* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0633. Thursday, 29 August 1996. From: Robert S. COHEN Date: Wednesday, 28 Aug 1996 11:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SHK 7.0629 Nashville *JC* Regarding recent reports of near-identical productions of *JC* in Nashville and Melbourne, I would guess these were either directed by, or ripped off from, Oskar Eustis who did another such cross-gendered and video-press-conferenced *JC* at the Mark Taper Forum (Los Angeles) in 1991. May I suggest that correspondents describing productions on SHAKSPER identify their directors? Robert Cohen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 06:40:14 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0634 CFP: In Shakespeare's Shadow Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0634. Friday, 30 August 1996. From: Andy Spong Date: Thursday, 29 Aug 1996 08:35:30 -0400 Subject: 'In Shakespeare's Shadow' [The following was posted yesterday on REED-L: Records of Early English Drama Discussion . --HMC] IN SHAKESPEARE'S SHADOW 'MINOR' DRAMA, 1590-1610 A CONFERENCE TO BE HELD AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HERTFORDSHIRE 22 MARCH 1997 ***** CALL FOR PAPERS ***** 'In Shakespeare's Shadow' will bring together research on the drama of 1590-1610 that is currently under-represented in literary study. The aim of the conference is to re-evaluate the drama of this period in its own right, and to question the canonical authority that Shakespeare commands to the detriment of all but a handful of his peers. Proposal for papers (20 mins. in length) are invited on a range of topics, including individual authors, canonical politics, intertextuality and the production of meaning, authorial authority, drama as cultural commodity, spectatorship and class, historicism vs. formalism, the use-value of drama, theatre as national genre, drama as social labour, difference dramatised, alternative heroes, disregarding/discarding Shakespeare. Theoretical and interdisciplinary work is especially welcome. Proposals of no more than 300 words in length (deadline 31 January 1997) and/or requests for further information should be sent to us at the following address: Andy Spong and Andrew Stott Centre for Renaissance Studies University of Hertfordshire Wall Hall Aldenham Herts. WD2 8AT or e-mail us at: A.D.Sponc@Herts.ac.uk A.M.Stott@Herts.ac.uk **************************************************************** ***** PLEASE CIRCULATE THIS MEMO TO INTERESTED PARTIES ***** **************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 06:44:11 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0635 Re: Parodies Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0635. Friday, 30 August 1996. From: Sydney Kasten Date: Friday, 30 Aug 1996 08:21:26 +0200 (IST) Subject: Parodies The Wayne and Shuster Years, a commercial video released in 1996 by Astral Video in Canada under CBC's copywrite contains a remake of "Kiss the Blood off My Toga", in which Julius Caesar's murder is treated as a whodunnit. It has the detective walking into a bar and ordering a martinus (If he had wanted two he would have asked in the plural), and Calpurnia wailing "I told him:'Julie, don't go!'" The videocasette also has "Shakesperian Baseball", done in meter with an all male cast and immortal lines such as "so fair a foul I have not seen!" Shakesperian's from cricket playing regions might need a commentary for technical terms, but human universals might come through even for the unschooled. The recent postings on parodies has brought out of the depths of my memory a 'Li'l Abner' series from several decades ago. 'Li'l Abner', for those too young to remember, was a syndicated comic strip drawn by the cartoonist and social critic Al Capp. The title character was the scion of a hillbilly family called the Yokums. Daisy Mae, daughter of the Scragg family, was in love with Li'l Abner, in spite of the fact that the Yokums and the Scraggs were in a state of feud. I think it was in a dream sequence that the constellation was transplanted to renaissance Italy and a drama was woven around the relationship between Romeo Yokumgo and Juliet Scragglet. This may have seen print before 1950. The serious PhD student doing a thesis on parodies should be able to find out who syndicated the strip and would have an enjoyable time reading through the episodes till he found this one. I read it in the Toronto Star. I believe Al Capp has been the subject of a biography. Sincerely yours, Sydney Kasten Jerusalem ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 10:16:23 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0636 West Michigan Festival; ACTER Fall 1996 Tour Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0636. Saturday, 31 August 1996. (1) From: Ron Dwelle Date: Friday, 30 Aug 1996 08:38:22 -0400 Subj: West Michigan Festival (2) From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Friday, 30 Aug 1996 06:50:01 -0400 (EDT) Subj: ACTER Fall 1996 Tour of *Much Ado About Nothing* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Dwelle Date: Friday, 30 Aug 1996 08:38:22 -0400 Subject: West Michigan Festival The 1996 Shakespeare festival at Grand Valley State University (Allendale, Michigan) is scheduled for September 27 to October 6. If any of you are in the area, please stop by. The production this year is Twelfth Night, with two pro actors (playing Feste and Sir Toby) and a student cast. Visiting firemen are David Bevington, John Cox, Grace Tiffany (on the literary side) and Jane Kuipers, Kateri Kline-Johnson, and David Pritchard (on the theatrics side). There will also be musical events, a Renaissance dinner, some Shakespeare satire by a good local improv group, and a number of films (with critical panels). Further info: e-mail me or Roger Ellis (ellisr@gvsu.edu). (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Friday, 30 Aug 1996 06:50:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ACTER Fall 1996 Tour of *Much Ado About Nothing* The Fall 1996 ACTER Tour of *Much Ado About Nothing* will be at these campuses: Sept 13, one pretour performance at UNC-Chapel Hill, NC; Sept. 16-22, University of Memphis, TN; Sept. 23-29, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN; Sept. 30-Oct. 6, Hendrix College, Conway AR; Oct. 7-13, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX; Oct. 14-20, UT-San Antonio, TX; Oct. 21-27, University of Richmond, VA; Oct. 28-Nov. 3, UNC-Chapel Hill; Nov. 4-10 DePauw University, Greencastle IN; Nov. 11-17,U. of Pennsylvania, Philadelpia PA; Nov. 18-22 Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH. For information on any of these residencies, contact cynthia dessen, manager, at csdessen@email.unc.edu or, after Labor Day, visit the ACTER homepage at http://www.unc.edu/depts/acter/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 10:20:58 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0637 Re: Merchant of Venice and Revenge; Parodies Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0637. Saturday, 31 August 1996. (1) From: Rick Jones Date: Friday, 30 Aug 1996 10:42:19 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0627 Re: Merchant of Venice and Revenge (2) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Friday, 30 Aug 1996 17:00:51 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0635 Re: Parodies (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Friday, 30 Aug 1996 10:42:19 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0627 Re: Merchant of Venice and Revenge On Mon, 26 Aug 1996, Bernice W. Kliman wrote: > Douce says, "[....] It will be readily conceded that there happily exist in > the present moment but few remains of the illiberal prejudices complained > of, the asterity of which has been greatly mitigated by the laudable and > successful exertions of a modern dramatic writer, to whom the Jewish people > are under the highest obligation" (1:292). > > Does anyone know who this "modern dramatic writer" might be? Since the question is "might be", I'd guess Lessing. I have no evidence for this beyond the fact that _Nathan the Wise_ (1779), which preached universal love between/among races, was both a popular and critical success not too long prior to the quotation in question. Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Friday, 30 Aug 1996 17:00:51 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0635 Re: Parodies >The recent postings on parodies has brought out of the depths of my memory a >'Li'l Abner' series from several decades ago. 'Li'l Abner', for those too >young to remember, was a syndicated comic strip drawn by the cartoonist and >social critic Al Capp. The title character was the scion of a hillbilly family >called the Yokums. Daisy Mae, daughter of the Scragg family, was in love with >Li'l Abner, in spite of the fact that the Yokums and the Scraggs were in a >state of feud. I think it was in a dream sequence that the constellation was >transplanted to renaissance Italy and a drama was woven around the relationship >between Romeo Yokumgo and Juliet Scragglet. This may have seen print before >1950. The serious PhD student doing a thesis on parodies should be able to find >out who syndicated the strip and would have an enjoyable time reading through >the episodes till he found this one. The Al Capp dailies are being reprinted in their totality by Kitchen Sink Press. They've gotten up to at least 1952, so the R &J sequence is probably available. Melissa Aaron ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 10:22:56 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0638 Q: *Rime of the Ancient Mariner* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0638. Saturday, 31 August 1996. From: Ian H. Doescher Date: Friday, 30 Aug 1996 21:50:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Rime of the Ancient Mariner Although I realize that this topic is not Shakespeare, I thought that perhaps I would try an idea on SHAKSPERians, hoping that the theme of dead English poets would be acceptable. I am attempting to put together a one-man show of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's _Rime of the Ancient Mariner_. The show would have background music and would consist mainly of the Mariner on board a ship, telling the tale as the audience sees it happen. Can this work? Is Coleridge's language not appropriate for entertainment beyond reading appreciation and analyzation? I would be grateful for the opinions of SHAKSPERians, which I value highly. Thank you. Ian Doescher swshbklr@minerva.cis.yale.edu========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 07:42:43 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0639 Re: *Rime of the Ancient Mariner* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0639. Monday, 2 September 1996. (1) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Saturday, 31 Aug 1996 10:02:46 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0638 Q: *Rime of the Ancient Mariner* (2) From: Mason West Date: Saturday, 31 Aug 1996 16:00:21 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0638 Q: *Rime of the Ancient Mariner* (3) From: C. David Frankel Date: Saturday, 31 Aug 1996 19:16:40 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0638 Q: *Rime of the Ancient Mariner* (4) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Saturday, 31 Aug 1996 20:03:36 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0638 Q: *Rime of the Ancient Mariner* (5) From: Stephen Neville Date: Sunday, 1 Sep 1996 08:15:30 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0638 Q: *Rime of the Ancient Mariner* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Saturday, 31 Aug 1996 10:02:46 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0638 Q: *Rime of the Ancient Mariner* This is for Ian Doescher, who wants to do a one-man show of STC's "Mariner." Just remember that--for many of us who grew up with television--the rhythms of the poem are more familiar as the tune to "The Ballad of Gilligan's Island." Good luck. --Bradley Berens (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mason West Date: Saturday, 31 Aug 1996 16:00:21 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0638 Q: *Rime of the Ancient Mariner* Hello Ian Doescher -- You asked: Can [a one-man show of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's _Rime of the Ancient Mariner_] work? Is Coleridge's language not appropriate for entertainment beyond reading appreciation and analyzation? I would be grateful for the opinions of SHAKSPERians, which I value highly. I would enjoy seeing such a show. I think Coleridge's language is not so removed from modern English as Shakespeare's, and Shakespeare remains quite popular today despite the Elizabethan idiom. If you watch _Out of Africa_, there's a scene in which Denys Finch-Hatton (Robert Redford) shampoos the hair of Karin Blixen (pen name Isaak Dinesen, played by Meryl Streep) while they are on safari. The script for this scene, which I happen to have handy, reads: She's on a camp stool, in shorts and camisole, a towel around her shoulders. He's shirtless [in the actual film he did have a shirt on], suds to the elbows, having a fine time, reciting all the while. DENYS "--Laughed loud and long, and all the while His eyes went to and fro. Ha, ha, quoth he, full plain I see The Devil knows how to row. Farewell, farewell--" KAREN You're skipping verses. DENYS I leave out the dull parts: "Farewell, farewell, but this I tell To thee, thou Wedding Guest: He prayeth well, who loveth well Both man and bird and beast." While Coleridge's conclusion, which became a kind of popular short verse that stood alone, resonates with the love of nature that Finch-Hatton incorporated into his philosophy of life, this scene also shows that Coleridge's audience enjoyed, even memorized, _The Rime of the Ancient Mariner_ for recitation as an entertainment in the days before radio and television usurped that function within our culture. In short, you have excellent precedence for making a one-man show of the poem. -- Mason (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Saturday, 31 Aug 1996 19:16:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0638 Q: *Rime of the Ancient Mariner* Of course it can "work" -- depends on the performer (and the audience). C. David Frankel frankel@arts.usf.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Saturday, 31 Aug 1996 20:03:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0638 Q: *Rime of the Ancient Mariner* Yes, the Rime of the Ancient Mariner can work as theatre. It was performed at the University of Toronto several years ago, and I don't remember much, but it was enjoyable. Perhaps someone else remembers? Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Neville Date: Sunday, 1 Sep 1996 08:15:30 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0638 Q: *Rime of the Ancient Mariner* I can see some problems with this idea, but that does not mean that it is not possible. Firstly, there are several voices in the poem. There is the narrator, the wedding guest, the Ancient Mariner plus First and Second Voice in Part Six. There is also another voice in the shape of the explanatory notes alongside the text, though for a performance these can be discounted. These voices are more easily portrayed by one person if the performance is audio only. Simon Callow recently gave an excellent reading (performance?) of the poem, doing all the voices, on "Poetry Please!", a BBC Radio Four programme. (I do not know if it is commercially available, but it is very good). Secondly, the poem is sited at a wedding feast, not on board a ship. Setting it on board a ship loses what might be considered an essential dimension of the poem. This links with the third problem. The wedding guest is an essential character in the poem He "Listens like a three years child:/The mariner hath his will" The poem is as much about the effect of the mariner on the wedding guest as about the effect of the journey on the mariner. The wedding guest, remember, has the last verse to himself "He went like one that had been stunned" etc.This may be difficult to display visually. Dylan Thomas's poem "Under Milk Wood" was a great success as an audio production, also for the BBC. A film was made of that and, whilst it was enjoyable, adding a visual element to it was, for me, a disappointment, as I had a mental picture of the poem that did not match what I saw on the film. Conversely, people who saw the film first may well have their subsequent reading of the poem "coloured" by what they have seen. Finally, I do not think Coleridge's poem is for "reading appreciation" only, it can be just as (or more) enjoyable, heard. Whether it "improves" by a visual presentation remains to be seen. Regards Stephen Neville ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 07:46:35 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0640 Re: Nashville *JC*; Bevington's *A Funeral Elegy* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0640. Monday, 2 September 1996. (1) From: Jeff Kean Date: Sunday, 1 Sep 1996 19:24:42 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0633 Re: Nashville *JC* (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 01 Sep 1996 22:05:33 -0400 Subj: Bevington's *A Funeral Elegy* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Kean Date: Sunday, 1 Sep 1996 19:24:42 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0633 Re: Nashville *JC* >Regarding recent reports of near-identical productions of *JC* in Nashville and >Melbourne, I would guess these were either directed by, or ripped off from, Oskar >Eustis who did another such cross-gendered and video-press-conferenced *JC* at >the Mark Taper Forum (Los Angeles) in 1991... Robert S. Cohen Question: Is anyone else out there disturbed by the term "ripped off" here? I may be displaying ignorance but I am not familiar with Oskar Eustis' work. Yet I directed a similar approach to *JC* in 1992 in Knoxville using the modern political arena and media as a setting for the show, albeit without cross-gender casting. My point here is that neither cross-gendering or modern placement seem to be the intellectual property of anyone in particular. As my Grad school Theory and Crit instructor used to say (and I paraphrase) The Greeks invented our theatrical form, the Romans added sit-com, and no one has come up with anything original since then. Jeff Kean (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 01 Sep 1996 22:05:33 -0400 Subject: Bevington's *A Funeral Elegy* David Bevington does include *A Funeral Elegy* in his updated fourth edition of the Complete Works, but he includes it as "uncertain" (1698). And the elegy is, strangely, NOT included in the table of contents. It's on pages 1699-1706. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:40:28 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0641 Re: Nashville *JC*; Parodies; Funeral Elegy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0641. Tuesday, 3 September 1996. (1) From: Jenny Lowood Date: Monday, 2 Sep 1996 12:10:05 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0640 Re: Nashville *JC* (2) From: Albert Misseldine Date: Tuesday, 3 Sep 1996 09:58:35 -0400 Subj: Parodies (3) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 2 Sep 1996 19:57:57 -0700 Subj: Funeral Elegy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jenny Lowood Date: Monday, 2 Sep 1996 12:10:05 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0640 Re: Nashville *JC* >Is anyone else out there disturbed by the term "ripped off" >here? I may be >displaying ignorance but I am not familiar with Oskar Eustis' >work. Yet I >directed a similar approach to *JC* in 1992 in Knoxville >using the modern >political arena and media as a setting for the show, albeit >without >cross-gender casting. In reply to Jeff Kean's question, I agree. The notion that putting JC in a modern political context is highly original seems to me very naive. I saw a production similar to the one he described about five years ago at the Julia Morgan Theater in Berkeley (put on by the California Shakespeare Festival). It was set specifically in the Kennedy era, pillbox hats for the ladies and all, but the TV cameras, questions from the press, business suits, and so on were all there. It's a natural connection. This particular performance lacked the cross-gender casting, but this too is a common contemporary device at Shakespeare performances. Jenny Lowood (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Albert Misseldine Date: Tuesday, 3 Sep 1996 09:58:35 -0400 Subject: Parodies Channel-surfing the other night I noticed a parody of the grave digger scene from Hamlet in a movie called LA Story with Steve Martin. Also the "wonderful,most wonderful..." line from AYLI was quoted, and there may be more stuff. Cheers. A Misseldine (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 2 Sep 1996 19:57:57 -0700 Subject: Funeral Elegy Prof. Leo Stock of the University of Ottawa, was the chief editor of The Nondramatic Works of John Ford: Mediaeval & Renaissance Texts & Studies (Binghamton, 1991). He is a foremost Ford scholar and took for his special study "Fames's Memorial", the Elegy that compares very closely with the "Funeral Elegy", as has been demonstrated on this line. He has allowed me to quote his opinion on the latter poem: "Were the "new" piece published anonymously, I would unhesitatingly ascribe it to Ford. Despite the initials, I see nothing in the work that would suggest Shakespeare." This is the opinion of a man who has taught both Ford and Shakespeare for some three decades. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:45:26 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0642 Q: *All's Well Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0642. Tuesday, 3 September 1996. From: Cynthia Franks Date: Tuesday, 3 Sep 1996 00:35:25 -0400 Subject: Re: All's Well That Ends Well Hello, This is my first posting to the list. I hope it is in keeping with the conversation. My University is kicking off the season with a production of All's Well That Ends Well. I plan to audition for the part of the Countess of Rousillon. I'm a playwright/actor. It is my feeling that the plot of this play is one of Shakespeare weakest especially in the Diana/Helena switch (and they thought they developed the scheming look alike on Dallas.) It seems to, I don't know, contrived. What are your thoughts? It also bothers me the way the title is said two or three times towards the end of the play. Again, any thoughts? Anyone seem any interesting productions of this play? Cindy Shakespare@AOL.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 10:57:45 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0643 Re: *Rime of the Ancient Mariner* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0643. Thursday, 5 September 1996. From: Lee Jacobus Date: Tuesday, 03 Sep 96 17:15:30 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0638 Q: *Rime of the Ancient Mariner* To Ian Doescher--I like the idea of the Ancient Mariner and I think it would work. Since I live right here in Branford, I would be interested in knowing when you do it so I can go see it. The dramatic monologue can work very well. Have you seen Brian Friel's _Faith Healer_ or his _Molly Sweeney_? Good stuff. Of course, some Wagnerian music might help (or maybe you lean toward Pink Floyd) . Anyway, let me know when you get going on this. Lee Jacobus ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 11:00:05 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0644 "Shylock" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0644. Thursday, 5 September 1996. From: Kenneth Brown Date: Thursday, 5 Sep 1996 08:49:29 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: "Shylock" Just a note about the premiere of an excellent new dramatic monologue called "Shylock," by Mark Leiren-Young, which opened at Vancouver's "Bard in the Park" festival last Monday. David Bergen played The Actor. The piece is the direct address to the audience of an actor who's just come offstage having played Shylock in a production of MV that has been closed by protests from various PC interest groups. The themes are the crucial ones of free speech, the preservation of literature, and separating the artist from his or her art. A very fine, passionately- argued piece that comes down firmly on the side of Shakespeare, of free speech, and of reason. I think it will be a companion piece to many a production of MV in coming years. By the way, it's already been published. Kenneth Brown Edmonton, Alberta ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 14:55:30 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0645 Re: "Shylock" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0645. Friday, 6 September 1996. (1) From: Thomas Berger Date: Thursday, 05 Sep 1996 16:52:32 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0644 "Shylock" (2) From: Suzanne Lewis Date: Thursday, 5 Sep 1996 19:40:07 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0644 "Shylock" (3) From: Richard Sutherland Date: Friday, 06 Sep 1996 08:39:27 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0644 "Shylock" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Berger Date: Thursday, 05 Sep 1996 16:52:32 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0644 "Shylock" I'd sure like the publication info on the Shylock pieceby Mark Leiren-Young. Is the piece widely available? Thanks, tom berger (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Suzanne Lewis Date: Thursday, 5 Sep 1996 19:40:07 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0644 "Shylock" Kenneth Brown raved about: . . . the premiere of an excellent new dramatic monologue called "Shylock," by Mark Leiren-Young, which opened at Vancouver's "Bard in the Park" festival last Monday. I coach the Speech and Theatre team at the high school where I teach. The monologue could make an interesting piece for my more advanced students. Do you know its approximate length? Also, is it published individually or in an anthology? Thanks for any info you may be able to provide. Suzanne Lewis suzanne.lewis@asu.edu English teacher, Speech and Theatre coach Mountain Pointe High School, Phoenix, AZ (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Sutherland Date: Friday, 06 Sep 1996 08:39:27 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0644 "Shylock" In reference to Kenneth Brown's mini-review of "Shylock," the producing company was Bard on the Beach (which is set in Vanier Park), and the actor's name was David BERNER, not Bergen. I did not see "Shylock," but I have had the opportunity in the past to work with Mr. Berner (who played Fagin to my Sykes in a production of "Oliver"), a local radio personality and actor of no mean ability. I trust this will set the record straight. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 15:00:16 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0646 Q: Indexing Software Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0646. Friday, 6 September 1996. From: John Cox Date: Friday, 06 Sep 1996 11:02:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Indexing Software I'd be grateful for suggestions about indexing software. I'm currently using the indexing features that come with WP6.1, but they have limitations. I can't create a run-in index, for example, without a lot of keystroke editing. WP6.1 also fails to alphabetize past the first letter of words. All subheadings beginning with "on" are thus listed in random fashion, rather than alphabetical order. AGain, a lot of keystroke editing is called for. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends dedicated indexing software, and it suggests CINDEX or MACREX, but the latest edition of the Manual is 1993, and those recommendations may be superseded by this time. I'm using an IBM compatible PC, so Mac software isn't available to me. Any suggestion is welcome. John Cox cox@hope.cit.hope.edu========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 11:00:05 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0644 "Shylock" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0644. Thursday, 5 September 1996. From: Kenneth Brown Date: Thursday, 5 Sep 1996 08:49:29 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: "Shylock" Just a note about the premiere of an excellent new dramatic monologue called "Shylock," by Mark Leiren-Young, which opened at Vancouver's "Bard in the Park" festival last Monday. David Bergen played The Actor. The piece is the direct address to the audience of an actor who's just come offstage having played Shylock in a production of MV that has been closed by protests from various PC interest groups. The themes are the crucial ones of free speech, the preservation of literature, and separating the artist from his or her art. A very fine, passionately- argued piece that comes down firmly on the side of Shakespeare, of free speech, and of reason. I think it will be a companion piece to many a production of MV in coming years. By the way, it's already been published. Kenneth Brown Edmonton, Alberta ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 15:42:54 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0645 Re: "Shylock" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0645. Friday, 6 September 1996. (1) From: Thomas Berger Date: Thursday, 05 Sep 1996 16:52:32 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0644 "Shylock" (2) From: Suzanne Lewis Date: Thursday, 5 Sep 1996 19:40:07 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0644 "Shylock" (3) From: Richard Sutherland Date: Friday, 06 Sep 1996 08:39:27 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0644 "Shylock" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Berger Date: Thursday, 05 Sep 1996 16:52:32 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0644 "Shylock" I'd sure like the publication info on the Shylock pieceby Mark Leiren-Young. Is the piece widely available? Thanks, tom berger (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Suzanne Lewis Date: Thursday, 5 Sep 1996 19:40:07 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0644 "Shylock" Kenneth Brown raved about: . . . the premiere of an excellent new dramatic monologue called "Shylock," by Mark Leiren-Young, which opened at Vancouver's "Bard in the Park" festival last Monday. I coach the Speech and Theatre team at the high school where I teach. The monologue could make an interesting piece for my more advanced students. Do you know its approximate length? Also, is it published individually or in an anthology? Thanks for any info you may be able to provide. Suzanne Lewis suzanne.lewis@asu.edu English teacher, Speech and Theatre coach Mountain Pointe High School, Phoenix, AZ (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Sutherland Date: Friday, 06 Sep 1996 08:39:27 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0644 "Shylock" In reference to Kenneth Brown's mini-review of "Shylock," the producing company was Bard on the Beach (which is set in Vanier Park), and the actor's name was David BERNER, not Bergen. I did not see "Shylock," but I have had the opportunity in the past to work with Mr. Berner (who played Fagin to my Sykes in a production of "Oliver"), a local radio personality and actor of no mean ability. I trust this will set the record straight. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 18:11:29 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0646 Indexing Software Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0646. Friday, 6 September 1996. From: John Cox Date: Friday, 06 Sep 1996 11:02:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Indexing Software I'd be grateful for suggestions about indexing software. I'm currently using the indexing features that come with WP6.1, but they have limitations. I can't create a run-in index, for example, without a lot of keystroke editing. WP6.1 also fails to alphabetize past the first letter of words. All subheadings beginning with "on" are thus listed in random fashion, rather than alphabetical order. AGain, a lot of keystroke editing is called for. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends dedicated indexing software, and it suggests CINDEX or MACREX, but the latest edition of the Manual is 1993, and those recommendations may be superseded by this time. I'm using an IBM compatible PC, so Mac software isn't available to me. Any suggestion is welcome. John Cox cox@hope.cit.hope.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 20:04:17 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0647 SHAKSPER Update Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 647. Wednesday, 11 September 1996 From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, September 11, 1996 Subject: SHAKSPER Update Dear SHAKSPEReans, The storm that hit the Mid-Atlantic area last Friday caused a technical problem with SHAKSPER that I was not able to fix until today. The two files that LISTSERV was processing at the time (7.0645 and 7.0646) may or may not have been delivered to you. After the problem was fixed, I re-sent these two files. Because LISTSERV was down, any submissions since Friday did not get through to me. Today, after I moved the SUN workstation into my new office (I have just been appointed Interim Chair of the Department), I installed an UPS, which should reduce if not eliminate these sorts of problems in the future. The entire University network, however, will be down this coming weekend for maintenance, so service will be interrupted one more time. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 08:20:38 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0648 The State of the Profession Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0648. Thursday, 12 September 1996. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 11 Sep 1996 17:09:04 -0400 Subject: The State of the Profession Earlier today I was speaking with a colleague who was talking about "the state of the profession" as if he knew what the state of the profession (i.e., teaching literature in general) IS. I admit that I do not know how to describe the state of the profession, except in terms like "fragmented." I'm wondering if a discussion of the "Shakespeare" profession would be fruitful. Is it possible to map our profession in the fall of 1996? Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 08:37:14 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0649 Re: "Shylock" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0649. Thursday, 12 September 1996. (1) From: James J. Hill, Jr. Date: Saturday, 07 Sep 1996 09:28:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shylock (2) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 6 Sep 1996 18:24:13 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Shylock (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James J. Hill, Jr. Date: Saturday, 07 Sep 1996 09:28:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shylock A recent posting noted a monologue "Shylock" by Mark Leiren-Young had been published. I would greatly appreciate bibliographic details of the publication as I have not been able to locate the item. Thanks. James J. Hill, Jr. TSU (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 6 Sep 1996 18:24:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shylock I would be very curious to hear more about this monologue under discussion -- which critics does this play take on? There is an excellent treatment of Merchant currently in the Avon theater at the Stratford Festival. It sets the action firmly in Fascist Italy, complete with blackshirts sipping coffee at St. Mark's square. Rather than idealize Shylock, or deny the ugliness that lies within even the heros of this 'comedy', it manages to show the environment in which Shylock can in fact become overwhelmed with rage, and in which purportedly nice gentiles can themselves be perfect beasts. There is a balance struck, simply by adhering to the original text and by setting the piece in a time when all of the action seems not only natural but inevitable. From what a friend told me while I was there, it was a rare occasion in which the whole community approved of the production. The play has its ugliness, and it runs so deep that I once heard Sir Ian McKellan declare he would never play Shylock. Perhaps if he were given an opportunity to see what Stratford has done with it, he could be persuaded to change his mind. Andrew White Urbana, IL ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 09:30:39 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0650 Fahrenheit's *Henry V* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0650. Thursday, 12 September 1996. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 11 Sep 1996 14:48:23 -0400 Subject: Fahrenheit's *Henry V* Fahrenheit Theatre Company's production of _Henry V_ (their 13th show) will open this Friday, September 13, with 13 actors, at the Fifth Third Theatre in the Aronoff Center in downtown Cincinnati at 8:00PM. I've watch this production develop from the initial read-through, and I'm looking forward to opening night. I recommend it to anyone who can possibly make it to Cincinnati. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 09:49:18 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0651 ACTER at SFA, Nacogdoches, TX Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0651. Thursday, 12 September 1996. From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Monday, 9 Sep 1996 05:16:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ACTER at SFA, Nacogdoches, TX ACTER is due to perform and teach for the week of Oct. 7-13, 1996 at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, TX. I am interested in getting in touch with anyone on that campus who participated in the last ACTER residency there (January 1993, *The Tempest*), or who is involved in this upcoming residency, or who knows any Shakespeareans on that campus. Please contact me offline ASAP at csdessen@email.unc.edu or call 919=967-4265. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 10:11:44 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0652 Job Announcement Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0652. Thursday, 12 September 1996. From: Larry Hartsfield Date: Wednesday, 11 Sep 1996 20:37:00 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Job Announcement The English-Communications Department at Fort Lewis College will have, contingent upon funding, an opening for a tenure-track position at the assistant professor level starting August 1997. We seek a generalist in British Literature with strengths in Renaissance, Shakespeare, and post-colonial literatures. The department encourages cross-disciplinary and innovative undergraduate teaching and is committed to exploring the intellectual links between the study of literature and media. The college, located in the ethnically diverse Four Corners area, is a vibrant campus committed to multicultural education. Ph.D/ABD and teaching experience required. FLC is an Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer. Minorities and women especially urged to apply. Send resume, transcripts, three current letters of recommendation, and statement of educational philosophy by November 4 to Larry Hartsfield, Chair, English Department, Fort Lewis College, 1000 Rim Drive, Durango, Colorado 81301-3999. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 14:42:39 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0653 Q: Branagh's *Hamlet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0653. Friday, 13 September 1996. From: Edward Wells Date: Wednesday, 11 Sep 1996 21:12:51 -0700 Subject: Branagh's Hamlet Skimming through a list of fall and early-winter movie openings, I found the names of Billy Crystal and Robin Williams in the cast of Branagh's Hamlet. Perhaps this is old news. But I must confess I literally howled when I read it. At any rate, I reserve judgment. Does anyone know the actual roles they'll be playing? (I could see Robin Williams as the grave-digger...) I hope it won't turn out like Keanu Reeves and Michael Keaton in Much Ado. However, I was heartened to find Charlton Heston in the cast too. That should be interesting. But no Thompson. Ed W. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 14:49:38 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0654 Re: The State of the Profession Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0654. Friday, 13 September 1996. (1) From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 12 Sep 1996 09:01:09 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0648 The State of the Profession (2) From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 12 Sep 1996 12:20 ET Subj: SHK 7.0648 The State of the Pro (3) From: Jean Peterson Date: Thursday, 12 Sep 1996 14:19:36 +0200 Subj: the profession under fire (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 12 Sep 1996 09:01:09 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0648 The State of the Profession I must say that a number of newly hired PhD's are a bit reluctant to dicuss "original texts", cannot quote from them and indeed give more evidence of thorough knowledge of theory and criticism than of the books they are presumably hired to teach. This I say from reports students have relayed to me, and perhaps I am being less than fair. Maybe they can type with more facility than I, but it strikes me that there is a general avoidance of the texts. If students arrived from high schools and Junior colleges already more familiar with the books, I could understand this trend with a more charitable comprehension. Harry Hill (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 12 Sep 1996 12:20 ET Subject: SHK 7.0648 The State of the Pro Bill Godshalk wonders if we can "map the profession," confessing that the terms that occur to him are things like "fragmented." Presumably he looks back on the days when we were in graduate school together and everybody at the MLA convention talked the same critical language, so that a "map" of the profession could be printed in one color (though even then there were a few bibliographers in one corner of the bar and a few linguisticists in another and even a few working poets and novelists in a third). But consider the metaphor further. On a map of the United States (all the liberal arts and sciences, shall we say, as they are represented by the departments in a university) Ohio, where Bill and I both live, he at one end of the state and I at the other, is all one color. The maps of the state that hang in state government offices, however, are likely to be particolored, so as to discriminate the counties (Explication County, Analytical Bibliography County, Queer County, and so on?). The maps in political party offices may well show a different set of divisions, congressional districts (very odd and complicated shapes, for the most part); those in a geologist's or botanist's office another and different set, perhaps requiring 17 or 30 colors instead of 4. (Somebody cleverer than I can continue the allegory.) On the ground, however, the state, at this time of the year, is mostly shades of green. I drove to Cincinnati and back last weekend, and although the rolling, partially wooded country south of Cleveland gave way to the intensely cultivated plain that starts around Columbus, only to be followed by the more steeply accidented contours of the Ohio River valley a few miles north of the Queen City, the transitions were gradual, and nothing but a few signs marked the political division into counties, while fewer though larger signs (election year billboards) indicated in a very general way a few but by no means all of the congressional districts. On the ground, linguistic and social differences could also be observed, including some traditional animosities--conservative Cincinnati competing against liberal Cleveland for political influence, federal contracts, Ph.D. programs in English (though alas, no longer for the championship of the AFC Central). For all that, as residents of the state Bill and I, his neighbors and mine, still have more in common than similar residents of Michigan or Kentucky--to say nothing of Caernarvonshire or Apulia or Szetzuan--even though in some contexts we may feel more comfortable with people from Michigan or Kentucky than with some other Ohioans--from Columbus, for example (the world's largest small town). I'm persuaded that that more complex understanding of mapping--including attention to the subsurface or geological elements, the methodological bases that may run across disciplinary boundaries the way the Laurentian shield crosses not only state but national lines, now overlaid, now exposed--reveals that we are not truly fractured, just complex. Various factors--especially, I think, the economic and psychological stresses that are accompanying the challenge to traditional literacy posed by The Screen--which happen, causally or not, to be coeval with those forms of economic retrenchment which have left all those younger scholars clamoring at the gate of Walden College--are tending to exacerbate the moments when the differences-that-need-not-be-divisions appear in our discourse, just as the 3-D map of a geographical terrain typically amplifies the vertical dimension by a factor of 10 or 20 in order to make the relief more apprehensible--and more interesting. I don't regard that as something necessarily worrisome. Geographically, Dave Evett (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Thursday, 12 Sep 1996 14:19:36 +0200 Subject: the profession under fire I don't know what Bill Godshalk means by calling "the state of the profession" fragmented--I would more correctly call it "terrified". As if all those jobs that DID NOT materialize in the 1990's and the thousands of qualified and talented Ph.D's desperate for employment were not enough; as if the hostility of the religious right and Republican majority to the mythic "tenured radicals"--you know, all those militant Marxist feminazi lesbian homosexual Satan-worshippers currently in charge of American universities --hasn't done enough damage in drying up millions of dollars in formerly available loans, grants and subsidies, demoralizing and impoverishing students and faculty alike (and making college simply impossible for many). Now we have the very real and present danger to the tenure system, first enacted in the firing of a third of the tenured faculty at Bennington last year, and currently embodied in legislature proposed and about-to-be-voted on at the University of Minnesota. I quote below from a posting I received via LISTSERVE from U of M faculty which explains their situation, and how the proposed new policy is being regarded as a "vanguard" of a larger national movement. This attack on the foundations of our job security and academic freedom is yet another manifestation of the increasing tendency to "run" universities just like corporations (Hey, why not hire all part-time faculty and save money on benefit and retirement packages, as so many businesses have done by replacing full-time empolyees with "temps" and part-timers?). Such "innovations," coupled with the job market "crisis" that has lasted half a decade and shows no signs of improvement, threaten "the future" of our profession--(not simply "our jobs" but what we offer, the value and integrity of what we do) in real, material, and substantial ways--far more than differences in approach, method and ideology could ever do us harm. Here are some citations from the U of M mailing, which provides a Net address, if you would like to see the documents. I will be happy to send full-text of the Faculty's response to the new proposal anyone interested; if these items are deemed of sufficient interest, Hardy can post them. Jean Peterson Bucknell University jpeter@bucknell.edu From the University of Minnesota faculty: >the following ...[has] to do with all of us who hold or want to hold >positions >as faculty in colleges and universities around the country. I ask >you to read >it and share its information with your colleagues and other >academics. >The University of Minnesota, as many of you already know, has been under >attack by an activist >board of regents for over a year now that would like to see the tenure policy >revised and tenure ultimately removed. They see themselves as in the vanguard, >as leading the charge, as it were, for making universities across the country >more efficient and business-oriented. Now they have come up with a 30-pp. >document (which is available on the Web, in case you are interested, at >http://mmnt1.hep.umn.edu/ufa/) to which the following is a response. > The following email was sent to all University of Minnesota > faculty by the chairs of the Senate committess responsible > for the Minnesota tenure code. It was sent Friday, September > 6, 1996. The mail header has been removed and a couple of > line breaks and tabs have been fixed. Otherwise, it is unchanged. > > We are sending this to you for your information. The actual > new tenure code can be found in text form at > http://mnnt1.hep.umn.edu/ufa/, which will enable you to compare > this document with the code. > > The new code was developed by the regents together with their > consultant Richard Chait and also Martin Michaelson of the > Washington, DC firm of Hogan & Hartson. As best we can tell, > the code was worked out between June and the release date of > September 5. We are not aware of anyone outside this group > who knew of the provisions before release. > > We regard this code as the prototype of tenure revisions > which other university governing boards will attempt to > impose in coming years. It is therefore of national interest. > > Paula Rabinowitz, Department of English > Thomas Walsh, Department of Physics > University Faculty Alliance > University of Minnesota > > ------------------------------ Contact me for full-text of the faculty's "response" to the new tenure code--JP ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 14:52:12 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0655 The New Globe Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0655. Friday, 13 September 1996. From: Steven Marx Date: Thursday, 12 Sep 1996 07:16:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The New Globe My wife and I were lucky to get front row gallery seats on the morning of the August 25th performance of Two Gentlemen of Verona at the New Globe in London. We found the production thrilling and memorable, its success due to fine direction and exuberant acting clearly responsive to the remarkable theatrical space. What I found most surprising was the expansiveness of the stage area--in width, depth and height--and the apparant contraction the 1500 member audience area. Two nights before we had sat in similarly located seats during an excellent production of The White Devil at the small Swan theatre in Stratford, but we felt closer to the actors and to the other members of the audience at the Globe. Partly this is due, I think, to the unusual overhanging gallery design which brings each tier 18 inches closer to the stage than the one below it; partly it's due to the daylight lighting which doesnt differentiate between audience and actors, emphasized in this case by the actors wearing present day clothing. The fact that the groundlings are often moving and carrying out their own dramatics--someone in the lower gallery fainting and being revived by St John Ambulance volunteers; ushers ushering the standees from sitting on the steps--enriches rather than detracts from the spectacle. An unforgettable experience for me occurred at a moment in the last act when the comedy turns tragic as the driven Proteus attempts to rape the disoriented Sylvia. Their contorted struggles on the floor of the stage took place inches away from the horrified faces of the spectators whose heads, hands, and forearms were level with the rush strewn boards. Until I saw this performance I shared the scepticism of many colleagues about the Globe project. But now I see the point. Building and working with a space that is this close to the original produces theatrical effects that cannot be predicted or reproduced in any other way. It may also produce new insights into Shakespeare's original intentions and methods.========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:29:05 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0658 Just Like Romeo and Juliet Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0658. Saturday, 14 September 1996. From: Jung Jimmy Date: Saturday, 14 Sep 1996 8:19am Subject: Just Like Romeo and Juliet I had not seen this show up, so I guess it died in the server confusion last week. I just saw the trailer for Romeo and Juliet, which has apparently been moved to a contemporary setting. Like much Hollywood advertising, it was long on flash, short on content. The only dialogue they showed was a wailing Romeo standing in the rain hollering "Juliet" a la' "Stella." My question is this, did they stick with the text, or did they modernize? While old text/new settings is common place on the stage; somehow the notion of Mercutio going off about Queen Mab, while standing in the hood with a 9mm seems disconcerting. (can you say, "when your a jet"?) jimmy ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:22:30 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0656 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0656. Saturday, 14 September 1996. (1) From: Mark Womack Date: Friday, 13 Sep 1996 16:02:28 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0653 Q: Branagh's *Hamlet* (2) From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Friday, 13 Sep 1996 16:20:28 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0653 Q: Branagh's *Hamlet* (3) From: Nell Benjamin Date: Friday, 13 Sep 1996 19:37:59 -0400 Subj: Branagh's "Hamlet" (4) From: Peggy Galbraith Date: Friday, 13 Sep 1996 23:24:01 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0653 Q: Branagh's *Hamlet* (5) From: Surajit A. Bose Date: Friday, 13 Sep 1996 22:50:50 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0653 Q: Branagh's *Hamlet* (6) From: Patricia E. Gallagher Date: Friday, 13 Sep 1996 22:09:09 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0653 Q: Branagh's *Hamlet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Womack Date: Friday, 13 Sep 1996 16:02:28 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0653 Q: Branagh's *Hamlet* Regarding Edward Wells's question concerning the cast of Branagh's *Hamlet*, here are all the actor's I've heard about and the roles they'll be playing: Kenneth Branagh: Hamlet Derek Jacobi: Claudius Julie Christie: Gertrude Kate Winslet: Ophelia Charlton Heston: Player King Billy Crystal: Gravedigger Robin Williams: Osric I have also heard that Gerard Depardieu and Jack Lemon will play small roles, but I don't know which ones. If anybody does, I'd like to know. Here are some of Branagh's comments about the film as they appeared in Liz Smith's "Personalities" column on September 1: "I wanted this film to be lush and glamorous, the women in fabulous ball gowns, the men in their tight dueling trousers. It's designed to resemble the court of some 19th-century Prussian royalty. . . . I just think the usual Gothic interpretations are a harder period for audiences. They can't relate. So this was more accessible, with a modern feel, but still ornate and distant enough so that it makes sense that these people are talking 'Shakespeare'." "I like the idea that audiences will come and enjoy the glamour and the intrigue. I didn't want the darkness associated with most productions. Despite the relentless tragedies, I think 'Hamlet' celebrates life, and I wanted to convey the vitality, humor and sex appeal of these characters." On casting Julie Christie, Branagh said, "It was a reverential experience working with her. She is so knee-tremblingly beautiful, I couldn't get my jaw off the floor for days. Certainly, having someone like Julie interpret Gertrude makes one understand why Hamlet is so infuriated over her marriage to Claudius, and why Claudius had to have her. Also, since Gertrude's role, is, in my opinion, rather underwritten, it helps to have such a great actress, whose face conveys so much emotion." The article also said the film will run 2 hours and 40 minutes and premiere on Christmas Day. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Friday, 13 Sep 1996 16:20:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0653 Q: Branagh's *Hamlet* My understanding is that Jack Lemmon will play the gravedigger and Robin Williams Osric. Both casting choices have very interesting possibilities, IMHO. Cheers, Doug Lanier DML3@christa.unh.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nell Benjamin Date: Friday, 13 Sep 1996 19:37:59 -0400 Subject: Branagh's "Hamlet" This is addressed to Edward Wells who writes: <> To answer your question --and feel free to post this if you think it will enlighten other Shaksper-eans-- Robin Williams is cast as "Osric" Billy Crystal will be the "Gravedigger" and Charlton Heston will dazzle us with his "Player King". Hope this is helpful, and sorry about the unorthodox posting methods. Nell Benjamin NellB@aol.com (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peggy Galbraith Date: Friday, 13 Sep 1996 23:24:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0653 Q: Branagh's *Hamlet* > Skimming through a list of fall and early-winter movie openings, I found the > names of Billy Crystal and Robin Williams in the cast of Branagh's Hamlet. ...deletia.... > But no Thompson. was anyone truly surprised? Peggy (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Surajit A. Bose Date: Friday, 13 Sep 1996 22:50:50 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0653 Q: Branagh's *Hamlet* Edward Wells is close. Billy Crystal plays the gravedigger. Robin Williams is Osric. Personally, I think that's an inspired choice; but let's see. (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia E. Gallagher Date: Friday, 13 Sep 1996 22:09:09 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0653 Q: Branagh's *Hamlet* Billy Crystal is playing the First Gravedigger, and Robin Williams is playing Osric. Charlton Heston is the Player King. For a complete cast list, check the Internet Movie Database at: http://us.imdb.com/ Patricia Gallagher hwest@ix.netcom.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:27:19 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0657 Re: New Globe; State of the Profession Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0657. Saturday, 14 September 1996. (1) From: Thomas F. Connolly Date: Friday, 13 Sep 1996 19:15:02 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0655 The New Globe (2) From: Allen Walker Date: Saturday, 14 Sep 96 00:57:53 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0654 Re: The State of the Profession (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas F. Connolly Date: Friday, 13 Sep 1996 19:15:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0655 The New Globe Steven Marx's comments are a wonderful precis of the anti-reconstruction argument couched in the enthusiastic language of a pro-reconstructionist. A point by point consideration of his comments nonetheless directs one to question the premise of the reconstruction. The positivistic elan that informs Mr Marx's sophisticated recapitulation of his experience in the theatre causes confirms my suspicions about the venture. I direct list-readers to the current issue of __Theatre Symposium__ and the essay by Ronald Vince. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Allen Walker Date: Saturday, 14 Sep 96 00:57:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0654 Re: The State of the Profession >From: Jean Peterson >I don't know what Bill Godshalk means by calling "the state of the profession" >fragmented--I would more correctly call it "terrified". As if all those jobs >that DID NOT materialize in the 1990's and the thousands of qualified and >talented Ph.D's desperate for employment were not enough; as if the hostility >of the religious right and Republican majority to the mythic "tenured >radicals"--you know, all those militant Marxist feminazi lesbian homosexual >Satan-worshippers currently in charge of American universities --hasn't done >enough damage in drying up millions of dollars in formerly available loans, >grants and subsidies, demoralizing and impoverishing students and faculty alike >(and making college simply impossible for many). Now we have the very real and >present danger to the tenure system, first enacted in the firing of a third of >the tenured faculty at Bennington last year, and currently embodied in >legislature proposed and about-to-be-voted on at the University of Minnesota. Having completed my MFA in theatre/film in May 1995, and more recently having completed my first semester teaching on the university level (I have taught at private academies for several years on a part-time basis), I have observed a distinct line between several modes of approach to theatre, most of them interestingly diverse and inspirational. However, as a person who considers himself a conservative moderate (I also happen to be a Christian), I personally have been vilified by many of my colleages and former academic professors as a member of the so-called "religious right" when in fact I do not consider myself to be an extremist of any kind. I find an appreciation for lesbian theatre as well as evangelical drama, Shakespeare as well as Marlow, performance art as well as Broadway musicals -- yet for some reason my colleagues still tend to brand me and my art as "threats" of some kind. I dare say that there might be some form of theatre/literature that each of us might find personally repulsive, not to our liking, against our values, whatever. I simply find it interesting that, more often than not (in my experience), any form of academia that even remotely embraces a judeo-christian perspective is treated with the same aversion one might have found in an 18th century leper colony. Whether or not I embrace the moral implications the views of so-called "tenured radicals", more often than not I have found this to be a one-sided battle. I'd be interested to hear from others in our profession who have experienced this form of oppression in the guise of political correctness. Funding and other issues aside, at least our theatres are not being physically burned to the ground by Puritans. Regards, ---Allen Walker ---Fort Worth, Texas ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 08:23:45 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0659 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0659. Monday, 16 September 1996. (1) From: Jodi Clark 303971 Date: Saturday, 14 Sep 1996 12:40:42 +0200 (IST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0653 Q: Branagh's *Hamlet* (2) From: Thomas Ruddick Date: Saturday, 14 Sep 96 13:50:37 EST Subj: RE: SHK 7.0653 Q: Branagh's *Hamlet* (3) From: David G. Hale Date: Sunday, 15 Sep 96 20:26:29 EDT Subj: Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jodi Clark 303971 Date: Saturday, 14 Sep 1996 12:40:42 +0200 (IST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0653 Q: Branagh's *Hamlet* Robin Williams is Osric and Billy Crystal is the Gravedigger if I recall from the nearly 20 minute preview on the tape of Othello. I have a question of my own. Has anyone seen the Company of Women's production of King Lear? I will be seeing it tonight. I saw their Henry V two years ago at Smith College and was completely blown away by the presentation of the characters. Jodi Clark Emerson College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Ruddick Date: Saturday, 14 Sep 96 13:50:37 EST Subject: RE: SHK 7.0653 Q: Branagh's *Hamlet* Ed W.--some of us accepted the Michael Keaton performance in Branagh's _Much Ado_ as an inspired bit of work firmly within the tradition of Will Kemp. Also please note that Robin Williams was trained at Julliard. It seems that many on this list have a problem with actors and modern acting? TR (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David G. Hale Date: Sunday, 15 Sep 96 20:26:29 EDT Subject: Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* SHAKSPEReans may be interested in the long trailer for Branagh's forthcoming "Hamlet" which is on the tape of "Othello" now in the video shops. It combines color bits from the film with black and white commentary by Branagh. The film is set in the nineteenth century, with exterior locations at Blenheim Palace. There are some interesting conceptions of scenes, especially the nunnery scene. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 08:30:09 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0660 Re: The State of the Profession Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0660. Monday, 16 September 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 14 Sep 1996 13:07:28 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0654 Re: The State of the Profession (2) From: Paul Hawkins Date: Saturday, 14 Sep 1996 15:56:13 -0400 (EDT) Subj: The State of the Profession (3) From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Sunday, 15 Sep 1996 12:51:14 -0400 Subj: SHK 7.0657 State of the Profession (4) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Sunday, 15 Sep 1996 18:00:42 -0400 (EDT) Subj: State of the Profession (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 14 Sep 1996 13:07:28 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0654 Re: The State of the Profession When I threw out the word "fragmented," I was thinking of what has been called "postmodern fragmentation," the emphasis on the parts rather than wholes. I really wasn't expecting Jean Peterson's "terrified." But the sense of terror, that we may lose or have lost jobs and programs, is certainly present in the profession. The Department of English at the University of Cincinnati recently lost direct state funding for our Ph.D. program. We are now funded by the University internally--i.e., indirect state funding. Since all the investigatory committees recommended continued funding for our program (with some qualifications), the Board of Regents' decicion to discontinue was surprising--to us. We are now attempting to revise our program to entice the Board of Regents to reconsider our case. However, I was thinking more in terms of what we are preparing our Ph.D. students to do in the classroom and in their professional lives IF they find jobs. Is there some definable core of skills, knowledge, abilities, etc., that we expect in our colleagues? Obviously, for a department that is reconsidering and revising its Ph.D. program, this question is of some practical importance! Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Saturday, 14 Sep 1996 15:56:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The State of the Profession "Fragmentation"--or if you prefer, "variety" and "diversity"--may characterize the profession at present, as may the feeling of being threatened by budget cuts and the attack on tenure. In addition to these things and in support of the remarks of Harry Hill, would we not also agree that the profession in the 1990s is characterized by its "flight from the aesthetic" (to use the words of Harold Bloom in *The Western Canon*) and the pervasive tendency in diverse criticisms to reduce the aesthetic to ideology? Whether or not we think the aesthetic can be or should be so reduced, and whether or not we would go as far as Bloom in seeing diverse contemporary criticisms together comprising a "School of Resentment," is not literary study (and Shakespeare studies) distinct among study in "the arts" in affording little room at present for those whose focus of study is the appreciation of the art--or the craft--of the texts they read? Paul Hawkins (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Sunday, 15 Sep 1996 12:51:14 -0400 Subject: SHK 7.0657 State of the Profession Allen Walker is quick to attack the Puritans. But let's not forget their vigorous and principled denunciation of activities such as bear-baiting; an appalling practice enthusiastically supported by theatrical entrepreneurs like Henslowe and Alleyn as well as by any number of early modern playgoers. Shakespeare's audience had plenty of blood on its hands. Terence Hawkes (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Sunday, 15 Sep 1996 18:00:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: State of the Profession If it is any consolation to our list member currently dealing with a baffling lack of civility down in Texas among arts faculty, the problem of dogmatism of the left and right (and, in many cases, dogmatism for its own sake) seems to be a widespread problem in academia. As much as I would like to sympathize with those on this list who protest the change in hiring practices, there are all too many cases in this country where faculties have become rigid in terms of ideology and methodology. And where professors, in spite of their job title, either spend their time in research or hound students out of their classes or both. In the case of Slavic studies, my wife's specialty, the ideology happens to be of a conservative variety, to contrast with the more left-leaning tendencies outlined previously. There is not just one party line out there, but there are far too many institutions that feel the need to establish orthodoxy, learning and teaching be damned. As a budding Theatre historian who hopes to teach some day, I too am uncomfortable with the ditching of concepts like tenure; at the same time, I was forced to waste both my and my parents' money on classes with totally ineffectual professors as an undergraduate, and wondered just what these classes would have been like with someone who could teach. Not that this justifies the dismantling of the current academic system, but there are more fundamental flaws than just those of career opportunities and worker's rights. The students' rights have been trampled upon too often for them to be ignored as well. Andy White Urbana, IL ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 08:38:35 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0661 Q: Post-Colonial *Tempest* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0661. Monday, 16 September 1996. From: Scott Crozier Date: Sunday, 15 Sep 1996 11:02:57 +1000 Subject: Tempest post-colonialism I recently reaad that the first post-colonial rendering of the Tempest was achieved by Jonathan Miller in 1970. I must admit I was shocked that this hadn't happened earlier. Are there any recognised post colonial readings of the play which were produced before 1970? Regards, Scott Crozier ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 08:49:41 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0662 Fahrenheit's _Henry V_ Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0662. Monday, 16 September 1996. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 15 Sep 1996 21:01:14 -0400 Subject: Fahrenheit's _Henry V_ Henry V and the Dirty Dozen Fahrenheit Theatre Company's production of _Henry V_ opened Friday, September 13, at the Fifth Third Theatre in the Aronoff Center at Seventh and Main in downtown Cincinnati. Jasson Minadakis is the director. The production has a modified thrust stage (in the shape of a gigantic H) with a small upper stage and a catwalk which extends the length of the front of the auditorium and along with left wall. The upper stage is reached by two ladders, one at either side of the large entry space (covered by a red aras). At the back of the upper stage (to begin) is a large red cloth with a gold four in Roman numerals. This is later replaced by a black cloth with a golden V. The gender blind casting leads to some interesting possibilities. With thirteen actors playing 43 roles, there is a good deal of doubling and conflation. The costumes and props are eclectic. The action begins with a retrospective view of Hal (C. Charles Scheeren) at the tavern with the charming low lifers Bardolph (Toni Rae Brotons), Nell (Kristin Chase), Pistol (Dan Kenney), Robin (Marni Penning), and Nym (William Sweeney) who interact with the audience before a voice over of Henry IV (_2 Henry IV 4.5.104-137) to which Hal listens in silence before ascending to the upper level where he places the crown on his own head and the red banner is replaced by his black banner. Act 1, scene 1, is completely cut. Throughout this production, Marni Penning artfully moves from Chorus to character, or from character to Chorus. One effect of this emergent Chorus is metatheatrical: the audience is recurrently reminded both by the words and actions of the Chorus that they are watching a play. In the first chorus Penning emerges from the tavern scene (where she plays Robin) to introduce Henry. Henry enters in a red gown accompanied by Scroop (Nicole Franklin-Kern) who stands at this immediate left as he ascends the throne. Exeter (Jim Stump) is dressed in black with the appearance of a samurai; his head is shaved and he wears black reflector glasses; he is obviously the king's enforcer. When Henry is assured by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Tony Rae Brotons) that he can claim the French throne, he throws off his red gown to reveal that he is already in military uniform, and a party of soldiers enters from catwalk left. The Dauphin's gift of "Paris-balls" is greeted with good humor and laughter. Henry takes one of the balls and throws it to his attendants. He is obviously happy that the Dauphin has been foolish enough to challenge him. In contrast to the royal preparations are the antics of Nym, Bardolph, and Pistol, three grunts, three of the dirty dozen from the previous reign: their tattered uniforms have "IV" on the backs, with the "I" pulled off but still visible. They all wear WW2 helmets. Nell is presented as sprightly, young, svelte, and sexy, and Pistol packs a mean guitar. In Henry's scene with the traitors, Scroop, Cambridge, and Gray, his men overlook the cat-and-mouse game from the upper level. Bedford's "'Fore God, His Grace is bold to trust there traitors" (2.2.1) is ironic since the ever-provident Exeter has positioned two archers on the catwalk with drawn bows. The traitors could be cut down at any time. In fact, Scroop refuses immediate submission, shakes her head "no," and attempts regicide, before giving up. Henry embraces her, since in this production she has indeed been his lover. The French King (Richard Kelly) is presented as mild mannered, stoop shouldered, a middle manager with glasses in a nondescript suit. The Dauphin (Colby Codding) is energetic, enthusiastic, and plucky, and when he mentions the "Paris-balls" that he has sent Henry, he vaguely gestures toward his groin. Perhaps one of the liveliest scenes in the production is the breach scene at Harfleur (3.1). The dirty dozen come crashing from back stage followed by Henry who harangues them to regroup. Of course, the effect of his harangue is immediately undercut by Bardolph, Pistol, and Nym who do not willing go back to the battle. In the parley scene at Harfleur (3.3), the vaguely comic governor (Chris Reeder) seems quite ready to submit at the beginning of Henry's long speech. He tries to get Henry to stop, but finally, frustrated, gives up and listens. The effect is to undercut Henry's speech, which, under the circumstances, cannot be taken with total seriousness. Katharine (Marni Penning) and Alice (Nicole Franklin-Kern) create one of the funniest scenes in the production 3.4, the language lesson with some ad-libbing. Katharine roams the audience looking for appropriate hands and "fingres." Unfortunately (or fortunately!), Cincinnati audiences don't seem to know why "de foot, and le count" are comic. (I noted that a local reviewer looked puzzled!) Bardolph is hanged on stage at Henry's command and the scene (as well as part one of the production) ends with his mourning over her body. During the battle of Agincourt, Henry is wounded in the face, an incident carried over from the battle of Shrewsbury, and the French prisoners are slaughtered on stage, Pistol being the first to act. Fluellen (Khristopher Lewin) is wounded in the leg. In the well-known leek beating scene, Fluellen hobbles on a crutch as he beats Pistol with a leek. The audience loved it. These various elements are held together by Jasson Minadakis's vision of Henry as a man who needs something to hold on to. He experiences a series of personal loses: the deaths of his father, Falstaff, Bardolph, Nym, and Nell; the defection of Scroop and Pistol. And his attempts to reach out are flawed or rejected, and perhaps only his relationship with his brother Gloucester (Lisa Penning) is without conflict. He wants his troops to be a band of brothers, but he cannot quite allow Williams to get that close to him. Katharine kisses him at play's end, but under duress. He has only France to hold on to, and, as the Chorus points out, not as a permanent legacy. Henry says that "the King is but a man" (4.1.102), but this production casts doubt on that assertion. Bates, Court, and Williams may huddle together for warmth, but Henry remains alone and cold at the top. The show runs until October 6. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 08:51:24 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0663 Re: Just Like Romeo and Juliet Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0663. Monday, 16 September 1996. From: Brooke Brod Date: Sunday, 15 Sep 1996 21:52:35 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0658 Just Like Romeo and Juliet I have not heard that much about the upcoming *R&J* film, but I have heard that they are using the text in its entirety. I may be wrong and if I am I'm sure someone on the list will be glad to correct me. Brooke Brod ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 08:23:15 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0664 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet*; Keaton's Dogberry Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0664. Tuesday, 17 September 1996. (1) From: Jeff Myers Date: Monday, 16 Sep 1996 14:52:38 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0659 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* (2) From: Kate Thompson Date: Monday, 16 Sep 96 13:03:45 UT Subj: RE: SHK 7.0653 Q: Branagh's *Hamlet* (3) From: Milla Riggio Date: Monday, 16 Sep 1996 13:04:03 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0659 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* (4) From: C. David Frankel Date: Monday, 16 Sep 1996 14:24:33 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0663 Re: Just Like Romeo and Juliet (5) From: E. H. Pearlman Date: Monday, 16 Sep 1996 12:11:48 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0659 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* (6) From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 16 Sep 1996 16:02:23 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0659 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Monday, 16 Sep 1996 14:52:38 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0659 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* >some of us accepted the Michael Keaton performance in Branagh's _Much >Ado_ as an inspired bit of work firmly within the tradition of Will Kemp. >It seems that many on this list have a problem with actors and modern acting? If Keaton's performance was indeed traditional, it would seem that those with a problem with modern acting would like it. Of course, Will Kemp did leave Shakespeare's company: so, perhaps it's Will Kemp that is the problem. Or, perhaps some of us saw Keaton's performance (and the directorial choices behind it) as more in the tradition of the Three Stooges (although not as subtle as the wonderful Stooges, who are probably also in the tradition of Will Kemp). Perhaps, just perhaps, some on the list have a problem with literary critics and their comments on modern acting. Just a possibility. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kate Thompson Date: Monday, 16 Sep 96 13:03:45 UT Subject: RE: SHK 7.0653 Q: Branagh's *Hamlet* You might want to bear in mind that Williams, although he dropped out, trained at Juilliard. He's not just a stand-up comic. Crystal, OTOH..... (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Monday, 16 Sep 1996 13:04:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0659 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* To Thomas Ruddick: I am a great fan of good modernized Shakespeare. I thought part of the Ian McKellan RICHARD III was brilliant. I think many of us who have no interest in museum theater (unless it's in a museum for a reason) feel we can distinguish between performances. We need not appreciate all modernizations any more than one appreciates all historical recreations in the theater. My problem with Keaton in MUCH ADO was that I had a lot of trouble finding the meaningful transfer to the modern: Michael Keaton was fine. But, please help me: WHAT was he playing? And why? For me, the transfer from Sicily to Tuscany of the setting set up a real loss in the clowns: there was no Tuscan equivalent of the Sicilian Dogberry to be played on. So it seemed to me that Branagh had gone to film history (with perhaps a little help from the idea of the hobby horse) to find a schtick for Keaton, and I could not make sense of it. I found it both boring and distracting, though it might have made great stand-up comedy. And it isn't because they were MODERNS! Best, Milla Riggio (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Monday, 16 Sep 1996 14:24:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0663 Re: Just Like Romeo and Juliet On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Brooke Brod wrote > I have not heard that much about the upcoming *R&J* film, but I have > heard that they are using the text in its entirety. I may be wrong and > if I am I'm sure someone on the list will be glad to correct me. > > Brooke Brod Several people have mentioned the complete text (of _Hamlet_). Does anyone know which one? Is Branagh using a conflated edition or the Folio text or something else? C. David Frankel frankel@arts.usf.edu (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. H. Pearlman Date: Monday, 16 Sep 1996 12:11:48 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0659 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* The casting of Julie Christie and Robin Williams seems to me to be brilliant. But the best part is Charlton Heston as the Player King. Here we have a bad Shakespearean actor (witness his A & C with Hildegard Neil and his Julius Caesar) playing a not - so - good actor. How did Branagh ever persuade him to take on such a piece of self-parody? Either Heston has a great sense of irony or he has no self-knowledge. I think the latter. E. Pearlman (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 16 Sep 1996 16:02:23 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0659 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* Thomas Ruddick writes: "-some of us accepted the Michael Keaton performance in Branagh's _Much Ado_ as an inspired bit of work firmly within the tradition of Will Kemp." Some of us didn't. I for one would have firmly quashed his distrust of the text. Dogberry has some of the funniest lines in the play, if only the audience hears them. It reminded me of a disastrous production I saw of "Earnest" in which Lady Bracknell, unsure that the audience would "get it," snorted maniacally after every line. The audience laughed at the snort, missed the line. Keaton's performance, and by extension Branagh's directing, assumed that the audience couldn't be trusted to "get it." This community theatre in a small Southern town thinks more of its audiences, and we've never been disappointed. [In fact, I've never been more surprised than to hear my *mother* laugh at the 12N C-U-T joke, since we were sure no one would get it and consequently felt free to play it to the hilt.] It has nothing to do with modern acting. It has everything to do with clarity. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company http://shenandoah.peachnet.edu/~dlyles/nctc/nctc.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 08:33:43 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0665 Re: The State of the Profession Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0665. Tuesday, 17 September 1996. (1) From: Lisa Broome Date: Monday, 16 Sep 1996 12:44:51 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0660 Re: The State of the Profession (2) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 16 Sep 1996 17:55:07 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0660 Re: The State of the Profession (3) From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 1996 12:37:33 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0654 Re: The State of the Profession, I (4) From: Michael Yogev Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 1996 11:02:49 +0300 (WET) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0660 Re: The State of the Profession (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Broome Date: Monday, 16 Sep 1996 12:44:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0660 Re: The State of the Profession Bill Godshalk recently wrote: >However, I was thinking more in terms of what we are preparing our Ph.D. >students to do in the classroom and in their professional lives IF they >find jobs. Is there some definable core of skills, knowledge, abilities, >etc., that we expect in our colleagues? I've been told that, in order to find a job, developing skills in a number of areas (historical or generic) is useful; for example, instead of marketing oneself as a Shakespearean, or even a Renaissance specialist, the better idea is to market oneself as a teacher/critic of many types of Early to Early Modern literatures (or, perhaps, of certain genres in both British and American literature of a certain period, etc.), the basic message being that I should be able to fill as many departmental needs as possible in addition to being a brilliant upstart crow in one special area. The message appears to me not so mixed, but massive; and I'm sure it simply reflects the bleakness of the job market. There also exists a running debate, quite connected to the above, I believe, about whether PhDs should be seen as budding scholars or budding teachers; the response, it seems, is to be the best of both at the expense of neither. Easier said than done, of course, especially when funding for fellowships is low and $ for TAships is perhaps more readily available or justifiable. My question, for everyone who's been in the profession a long time, is to what degree has this message really changed? My undergraduate professors advised me in a similar fashion, and I'm still hearing this message, but in more desperate ("this is your life") terms. I'm under the impression that there *was* a golden age of hiring, but can't find anyone to confirm it. Sincerely, Lisa Broome (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 16 Sep 1996 17:55:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0660 Re: The State of the Profession It is interesting to me how a perfectly reasonable and dispassionate question, posed by Prof. Godshalk about the state of the profession, immediately became the pretext for the venting of frustrations about the lack of jobs in the profession and especially about the apparent dominance of the profession by hobgoblins. Perhaps the frustrations are not unrelated. One certainly wonders why a department like like Prof. Godshalk's, excellent though it may be, is concerned about losing Ph.D. students. Is any social good served by subjecting individuals to years of rigorous training for a profession which they are unlikely ever to be able to profess? Can't we find a raison d'etre for the things that English professors do which doesn't ultimately depend upon doing a disservice to unsuspecting young (or not so young) enthusiasts? Why in short do we have Ph.D. programs not only at a handful of top research universities (to train that handful of individuals likely to become professors), but at a hundred other places? And why, given the oversupply of ambitions and the incredible undersupply of opportunities, should we not expect the result to be a terrible oversupply of resentment? But I would like to urge my brothers and sisters on this list not to let resentment or the resentment of resentment masquerade as a solution to the problems besetting all of us, including the very real problem of the apparent fragmentary nature of the humanities today. Among other things, I would like to point out (a) that the fragmentary nature of the humanities is not necessarily in itself a bad thing, and (b) that it is not unique to today or even to the humanities. All of the sciences, the hard and the human, are fragmented today. Most of them always have been that way. And most of them have always also been highly contentious, politicized affairs. If you think English departments are bad, take a look at economics, or psychology. If you think disputes about "constructivism" are shrill, take a look at disputes about evolution or inflation or the causes of AIDS. But controversy isn't a sign of depravity; and ideological warfare isn't a sign of ignorance. On the contrary, both are signs are intellectual health. If aesthetes are lonely, and Christians are feeling dejected, if white males are feeling resentful and minorities and women are resenting their resentment, let's remember first of all that the scarcity of opportunities for non-instrumental intellectual work affects EVERYBODY of EVERY PERSUASION in EVERY FIELD (except perhaps biology and computer science, though these are mainly "instrumental" fields); and let's remember second of all that the existence of controversy is probably the only sure sign that what we are doing, even in spite of the scarcity of opportunities, in some sense matters. Robert Appelbaum (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 1996 12:37:33 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0654 Re: The State of the Profession, I Well, as a soon-to-be-submitting PhD student, I feel I have to respond> Harry Hill wrote that: >I must say that a number of newly hired PhD's are a bit reluctant to dicuss >"original texts", cannot quote from them and indeed give more evidence of >thorough knowledge of theory and criticism than of the books they are >presumably hired to teach. This I say from reports students have relayed to me, >and perhaps I am being less than fair. Maybe they can type with more facility >than I, but it strikes me that there is a general avoidance of the texts. As someone who did my undergraduate work at a quite conservative (by Australian standards) institution, I did not find my experience of studying in the Humanities quite as Harry describes. We *did* become intimate with the texts, in the best Bradleian/Leavisite/Tillyard tradition. Theory was something easily avoided. If I cannot quote at leangth from texts, it is more out of sympathy with Sherlock Holmes' philosophy of brain-stuffing than anything else. I am, at the moment, sniffing around looking out for the great 'What Happens Next' - postdoc positions, lectureships and so on. I have not had much chance to teach while doing my PhD, despite having (a rare thing still in university circles here) a teaching qualification, and I suspect this is due partly to a alte-developing awareness of how to go about getting the teaching, but perhaps also due to a confessed lack of familiarity with much of the 'theory' mentioned above. And most of the teaching positions I see advertised - wherever they are - require some expertise in some area(s) of theory; an expertise I cannot offer because that is not what I do. If, as Harry Hill suggests, the 'texts' are being avoided, it is not entirely due to any deep-seated bibliophobia on the part of graduating students: it is a reflection of their experience, their 'training' as undergraduate and graduate students, and of the imbalance between teaching and research that is the source of no small amount of tension - as far as I understand - in universities both here and elsewhere. Robert O'Connor Postgraduate student and soon to be inflicted once again upon the 'real' world English Department Australian National University PS to further reassure Harry Hill - I'm a two-finger typist at best! (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 1996 11:02:49 +0300 (WET) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0660 Re: The State of the Profession I share Jean Peterson's concern about the state of hiring and retaining new junior faculty (like myself). While the labor unions, including the university faculty union, here in Israel maintain vestiges of their earlier socialist militancy when it comes to job security and tenure, their clout is gradually eroding in public opinion and in government circles as well. To some degree this is justified due to the amount of corruption and nepotism these unions have fostered over the years, but the bathwater may stink more than the babies--especially us new ones. Andrew Walker's comments about feeling like he is wasting his time--and his parents' money--in many courses are indicative of the state of our profession, too. He is surely not alone in feeling that the vast majority of his lecturers are more concerned about publications and conferences than about the quality of the classes they teach. I will not try to excuse any lecturer, senior or fresh out of grad school, who does not want to work hard at teaching, but Mr. Walker should recognize that tenure and promotion committees take a quantitative approach most often in considering whether to hire, keep, or fire someone--and the number of pages of publications is the quantity they check. Few if any universities have taken seriously (or seriously enough) student course evaluations. The University of Haifa is probably better than most, in that over the past two years our Rector has made a public commitment to excellence in teaching--after several publicized scandals involving the deliberate overpopulating of undergrad courses to maintain FTP's, and then a second year equally deliberate whittling down of said departments' student populations by some 30%. We now have an Excellence in Teaching award for each department which is given with some to-do each fall. The problem is that in the same breath the Rector has told the Heads of Departments that those smaller departments with less demand for places must essentially dismiss all standards when accepting students in order to make the University competitive for the increasing number of students opting for our local or community colleges. What all this indicates to me, as one without tenure and working hard at teaching AND publishing, is that the economics of world "turbo-capitalism" have percolated into the university as well, and this makes the job of higher education hostage to the numbers-crunchers. In view of the relatively low wages paid by the teaching profession, even at the university level, and in light of recent developments in tenure systems inaugurated by US institutions like U of Minn., it seems that our life will be even less secure down the road unless some of us can come up with a more convincing set of explanations, including economic factors, in defense of the tenure system. My sense is that the best defense is a vigorous attack on the trend to hire and exploit part-timers at the expense of FTP's and tenure-track positions. Not only does this bode ill for the state of the profession from the point of view of its teachers, but it will also cause a serious deterioration in the level of study offered. Part-timers (as well as many of us full-timers) must look to moonlighting for financial compensation and benefits packages, and hence are harder pressed to keep up with current scholarship in their fields--not to mention the fact that they have little or no incentive to do so professionally. As a grad student and part-timer for many years myself, I know that many of my untenured colleagues are and remain among the best teachers out there. But I think we need to make a principled and vocal stand for the system of tenure as the best guarantee of the excellence and progress in teaching for the future. This stand should come with a promotion system that seriously considers and rewards excellence in teaching along with the research and publication that is essential to it as well. Michael Yogev Dept. of English University of Haifa ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 08:38:09 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0666 New Work on Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0666. Tuesday, 17 September 1996. From: Daniel Traister Date: Wednesday, 11 Sep 1996 20:00:50 -0400 (EDT) XSubject: New Work on Shakespeare Forwarded from Ha-safran: > From: DAVID BASCH > Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:56:28 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: LOST JEWISH POET > > RECOVERING A LOST JEWISH POET > > This proposal was submitted last year to a conference on Judaic > studies at Brandeis University. See what you think. The material > noted appears in the recently published book, SHAKESPEARE'S JUDAICA > AND DEVICES, now available. This was the sequel to my earlier book, > THE HIDDEN SHAKESPEARE. Guess what was hidden? > > A JEWISH SHAKESPEARE? > THE CASE > > To those unacquainted with the evidence, few subjects will appear as > unpromising as a Jewish William Shakespeare. However, most curiously, > the finding of strictly Judaic elements in his plays reveals the > Bard's knowledge of Talmud, Midrash, and Aggadah, literatures all but > unavailable in the England of his time -- Jews having long been > expelled. > > While skeptics may reject the diagnostic worth of even some Judaica in > the work of a medieval author who has demonstrated a prodigious > catholic reach, its presence, easily confirmed, poses a major > challenge to scholarship. Why has this content been little accounted > in earlier study? Where did Shakespeare gain access to this > literature? Does it appear in patterned ways, revelatory of its > author? These are among the questions assayed here. > > Exhibit A of the evidence presents a sampling of Shakespeare's use of > talmudic materials. Some are the easily identified lines, such as > "What's mine is yours and what is yours is mine," and "Sin will pluck > on sin," appearing respectively in Measure for Measure and Richard > III. While both lines are drawn from the Talmud's Pirke Avoth, their > simplicity is such to make them suspect. But, when it is learned that > the continuation of the talmudic line on "Sin plucks etc," which runs > to "sechar mitzvah mitzvah," is to be found in Coriolanus in praise > of Marcius, a man who "rewards his deeds with doing them," it becomes > evident that the Bard had rendered this talmudic line in full. > Note here, we are actually given a "drash" ((an interpretation)) > of this phrase and not merely its translation, because one meaning > of the line is that the mitzvah is its own reward. > > And lest it be believed that Shakespeare restricted himself to Pirke > Avoth, of which there were some Latin translations, we find -- among > numerous other examples -- one of Shakespeare's characters reciting > for us the five penalties called for by the Talmud for injuring > another. Also to be found in one of his plays, when understood, is > his version of the traditional Purimshpiel ((play)) in which all is > "lehephech," opposite. > > Concerning direct historic evidence, Exhibit B reveals that > Shakespeare's father was left a legacy in which his last name was > given as "Shakere." The historian who brought this news failed to > recognize the implication that this name, in Hebrew, has a meaning > suggesting a crypto-Jew. Thus, "shakere" appears in the Hebrew of the > Ninth Commandment where it means "false" -- as surely a Jew who > witnessed falsely as a Christian must have been. > > Have we here more circumstantial evidence ultimately signifying > nothing? Once again, the skeptic will find no sanctuary. For Exhibit > C clearly demonstrates that Shakespeare knew its meaning and portent > since he found ways to interject his name as "Shakere" into some of > his immortal plays in modes revelatory and reminiscent of the practice > of the authors of medieval Hebrew prayers. > > Finally, Exhibit D is Shakespeare's 1596 Coat of Arms, the application > for which, extant, includes a tell-tale sketch and motto. Not only > does this confirm the Bard's attachment to what must be called his > family name, but reveals him as defining himself as a son of Abraham > Isaac, and Jacob, and much, much more, to be revealed in my new book, > among which is the evidence that he did play a part in the writing > of the Kings James Version of the Bible. > > The trail of these Judaic signs, left as clues by the greatest of > communicators, has awaited plumbing by those who retained possession > of the Jewish religious culture known to him. > > ****** > AUGUST 1994 > > PRESS RELEASE > > THE HIDDEN SHAKESPEARE: A ROSETTA STONE > > by DAVID BASCH > > **** FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE **** > > > If Basch's observations in The Hidden Shakespeare are correct, the > controversy over the authorship of Shakespeare's plays will have > heated up a notch. Not only will the favorite candidates for this > authorship, like Edward de Vere and Francis Bacon, be eliminated, but > new controversy will begin over the personal Shakespeare and the > message of his plays. > Basch presents striking evidence, both external and internal to > Shakespeare's work, that he was indeed the William Shakespeare of > Stratford, but a man whose origins are radically different from what > has been supposed. This revelation is not merely of a parochial > interest, because, as Basch shows, it bears on the meaning of the > Bard's work. > As things shape up, it remains true that Shakespeare, while being > an intensely proud Englishman, was at the same time the prototype for > the universal man who spoke to the ages for all mankind. Yet, the > foregoing does not change the fact that he was at the same time a Jew, > forced to hide his identity in an England in which Jews had long been > expelled and in which being a Jew was a crime. > What is the evidence for this dramatic finding? On the historical > side, an overlooked diocesan record has been available that tells > that Shakespeare's father, John, had another last name. Basch is the > first to report that the name actually has a meaning in Hebrew which > has implications for the poet's identity. But even more persuasive > than this admittedly inconclusive detail is the internal evidence to > be found in his plays. > It seems that Shakespeare had provided a Rosetta Stone to enable > future generations to ferret out the facts now coming to light. In > what is certain to be a major cultural find, somewhat akin to the > original Rosetta Stone that enabled the lost hieroglyphic language of > ancient Egypt to be recovered, the immortal poet devised a key to the > hidden facts of his origin. It is the presentation of this internal > literary evidence that forms the central core of Basch's book. > In an account that reads like a detective story, Basch peels away > the layers of meaning in the poet's work, getting ever closer to the > real man, what he said and believed. Unlike evidence that is > inferential, unintentionally left by an unwilling subject desiring to > hide himself, Shakespeare very consciously devised and purposefully > left word of himself. To the world, it offers new insight on the > meaning and message of his works -- a message more than ever relevant > in a world of diversity seeking to find unifying themes of > brotherhood. > Anticipating reaction to his findings, Basch, quoting Shakespeare, > poignantly asks whether "love will alter when it alteration finds"? > It is in his final chapter that he offers a larger perspective on this > question. Basch looks forward to a future in which, through a wider > understanding, the poet's message, like the message of Israel's > prophets, will truly belong to all people. > Basch's central thesis is presented in Chapter 1 where we are > introduced to the Bard's scheme of self revelation. It will surely > seem as ingenious as the poet-genius that crafted it. The key to it > is Jewish traditional lore, inaccessible to the surrounding cultures > he lived among. When this lore is brought to the fore, suddenly the > scheme becomes transparent and predictable. For just as the biblical > Joseph, unrecognized by his brothers in Egypt, reveals himself to > them by demonstrating familial knowledge, so does Shakespeare emulate > this feat, leading to a new world of discovery. > Later chapters (Chapters 2, 3, and 4) in the book, record the > process that led to the formulations of his main chapter. Of > particular significance is Chapter 2, titled "Shylock on Appeal." > This chapter alone will change the reader's understanding of the > meaning of The Merchant of Venice. It will smash forever the idea > that this play was an anti-Semitic work depicting an ignoble Jew. > And just when the reader could think that, with the conclusion of > the revelations on the personal Shakespeare, Basch had exhausted his > topic, in Chapter 5 his subject suddenly broadens. Here he discusses > some of the specifically Jewish sources Shakespeare drew on in his > work -- sources scarcely, if ever, touched on by commentators. Basch > then ends up with what will surely be an ongoing discussion of what > Shakespeare, as a Jew, contributed to Jewish thought itself. Opening > this discussion, he reveals that Shakespeare gave his own commentary > on Job and Ecclesiastes in a manner that will without doubt surprise > and astound the reader. > Basch's book will be particularly inspiring to budding writers who > believe they have a unique perspective to offer. To read in this book > of Basch's first dawnings of insight and the implications these raised > proves that an individual can make a difference in subjects thought > to be only the domain of the specialist. In Basch's case, he had been > intrigued by an idea off the beaten path. Over time, following his > intuition, he found his subject ever deepening. In the end, to his > own astonishment, he discovered that he had literally gone where none > had gone before. > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > The book includes an index and a summary of The Merchant of Venice > for those unfamiliar with the play. For a copy, send a check > or money order for $12, checks to David Basch at > Revelatory Press, P.O. Box 370-577, West Hartford CT 06137-0577. > > ***** > > > ***** PRESS RELEASE ***** > APRIL 23, 1996 > > SHAKESPEARE'S JUDAICA AND DEVICES > by David Basch > > In his new book, Shakespeare's Judaica and Devices, David Basch > continues the explorations of the peculiarly Judaic content to be > found in the works of William Shakespeare and in the "devices," the > visual artifacts, that have been associated with him. This Judaic > content goes beyond acknowledged biblical influences and includes > Judaic literatures barely known to the Gentile world. Basch began > this investigations with his 1994 book, The Hidden Shakespeare, in > which he documented both apparent and hidden Talmudic and Aggadic > (Judaic non-legalistic) elements in the poet's work that reveal > purposive, telltale messages of his Jewish origin and his wish to > communicate this as a legacy. > > The pages of this very readable sequel to Basch's earlier book > positively pulsate with more revelations about the poet himself. > Presented are new in-depth studies of some of the previously > investigated works plus an assortment of brief to extensive treatments > of additional plays. Of particular note among these are the analyses > of two of Shakespeare's major plays, The Tempest and Hamlet. > > In the full-scale treatment of The Tempest -- a play that has been > considered one of the poet's most mysterious -- Basch finds a > substantial presence of Judaic elements that serve as the master keys > to the play's meaning. These occur in the imagery of the play, > infusing its action and shaping its message. Prior to Basch's > analysis, it could not be dreamed that The Tempest could constitute > the poet's interpretation of the Jewish concept of sin and repentance, > complete with the themes of the Jewish High Holy Days and their scheme > for the restoration of man to a state of spiritual purity. Also > analyzed is the baffling Epilogue, the last words of the play. These > bear a plea of universal significance, spoken through Prospero, the > main character of the play and what a character he turns out to be! > According to Basch (and other commentators), Prospero is none other > than an allegorical representation of the L-rd G-d Himself, > characterized, not surprisingly, as a G-d of justice and of abundant > mercy and compassion. > > In Basch's treatment of Hamlet, he greatly amplifies his earlier > account, showing explicitly the many telling indications that this > play is, without doubt, the poet's rendering of the Bible's Book of > Ecclesiastes. Added to the earlier account is the elucidation of the > Talmudic controversies that are imbedded in the play and which are > central to its understanding. Far from being peripheral features, > mere parochial indulgences, these Talmudic elements enable the > unraveling of many of the puzzling aspects of this play and are > testaments to the poet's astounding literary mastery, demonstrating > his capacity to relate multiple levels of reality describing the > doubleness of existence. Thus, this play not only fascinates in its > unfolding of complex characters within a gripping story but also as > the poet's interpretation and philosophical commentary on the work of > the Bible upon which it is patterned. > > Among the many topics dealt with in the book is the compelling new > evidence that Shakespeare was a participant in the writing of the King > James Version of the Bible. As Basch shows, it is not without basis > that some commentators have found in the majestic cadences of the King > James Version signs of a Shakespearean literary influence. Also > treated are the indications of Shakespeare's sometime use of the names > of his characters for revelatory purposes and the suggestion that some > of these characters are meant as portraits of real persons close to > him, some bearing on his Jewish self-revelation. > > Not least of the valuable material in Basch's book are the > explorations of the visual artifacts, the "devices," whose creation > were certainly brought about by the poet. In shedding light on these, > Basch demonstrates how the poet's Coat of Arms -- a penned sketch > deceptive in its apparent simplicity -- is actually a complex vehicle > for revelation of the poet's Jewish origin. In deciphering it, Basch > calls attention to the work of the late Leslie Hotson of Yale > University, who first proposed that certain Elizabethan portrait > devices depicted William Shakespeare and the "Friend" of the Sonnets. > These had been painted by Nicholas Hilliard, the period's master of > miniatures. Not only is there a review of Hotson's evidence, but > Basch adds considerably to it as he further discloses overlooked > revelatory features in these works pertaining to the poet. Basch > shows that they indeed give the world a view of the handsome > countenances of a red-haired poet and his elusive Friend. > > It is abundantly clear that with the new dimensions added by > Basch's books, we have entered a new era in Shakespearean scholarship. > The full impact of this will surely take many years to explore and > will necessarily involve the subsequent work of many scholars and > commentators. Only a few years ago scholars lamented the ironic fact > that the poet, a man who had held a mirror up to nature and revealed > through his characters the hidden depths of man, would himself remain > forever hidden. Basch's work has now rendered such observations > altogether obsolete. > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Shakespeare's Judaica and Devices is now available from Revelatory > Press, P.O. Box 370-577, West Hartford, CT, 06137-0577, $22 postpaid; > all checks made out to David Basch. This book with The Hidden > Shakespeare is available for the special price of $32 -- a $44 value. > > ****** > > =========================================================== > > > SHAKESPEARE'S JUDAICA AND DEVICES > by David Basch > > From the rear bookjacket of the now available publication > from Revelatory Press: > > > SHAKESPEARE'S JUDAICA AND DEVICES > > David Basch in this sequel to his earlier book, The Hidden Shakespeare, > continues to illuminate the abundant Talmudic and Aggadic (non- > legalistic) influences in the poet's work -- Judaica virtually unknown > in the England of his time. > > Now Basch turns his eye to additional works by Shakespeare, including > The Tempest, a play so dense with unsuspected Judaica that its meaning > had remained beyond grasp. Revealed is a towering allegorical portrait > of the G-d of the Hebrew Bible, who, not surprisingly, brims with mercy > and compassion and makes a plea with world-wide significance. > > Also presented is an expanded study of Hamlet, disclosing its many > parallels to the Book of Ecclesiastes and the Talmudic controversies > imbedded in its plot that enter deeply into the play's ultimate meaning. > Scholars who will fail to take account of the many new findings in this > book will do so at their own academic peril. > > OTHER FINDINGS INCLUDE: > > The poet's direct role in the writing of the King James > Version of the Bible. > > The poet's revelation of himself as a scion of the three > Jewish Patriarchs -- a testimony to be read from the record > of his design of his Coat of Arms. > > The poet's legacy of portrait devices of both himself and the > Friend of the Sonnets, "limned" by the renowned royal court > painter Nicholas Hilliard, presenting for the first time their > significant, revelatory Judaic content. > > > WHAT THE SCHOLARS SAY: > > I not only read your book [The Hidden Shakespeare] and found it > very impressive and convincing but the additional evidence you > have been accumulating [now in this book] makes your argument > even more persuasive.... Shakespeare [is] ... probably a genius > of Jewish descent, a Marrano, intimately familiar with Jewish > materials who might have wanted to promote the honor of Jews > and Judaism. > -- Rabbi Emanuel Rackman > Chancellor, Bar-Ilan University, Israel > > > Although Shakespearean scholars will no doubt dispute many of > Basch's conclusions, even those who disagree will find his focus > on Judaic elements in Shakespeare's work useful, especially since > this subject has not elsewhere been dealt with in such abundance > nor so thoroughly analyzed. > > -- Dr. Marc B. Shapiro > Center for Judaic Studies > University of Connecticut > > ===================================================== > For further information, post directly to David Basch > ===================================================== ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 08:53:54 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0667 Early Modern Literary Studies (2.2) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0667. Tuesday, 17 September 1996. From: Joanne Woolway Date: Monday, 16 Sep 1996 14:20:02 +0100 (BST) Subject: EMLS 2.2 The new issue of Early Modern Literary Studies (2.2) is now available. The table of contents is below, and our Website can be found at http://purl.oclc.org/emls/emlshome.html This is our new Persistent URL (PURL) which links to our site at http://unixg.ubc.ca:7001/0/emls/emlshome.html As well as the articles and reviews below, we have links in our Interactive section to new resources, conference information, theses, and calls for papers. To receive an e-mail version of EMLS, please send a message to Subscribe_EMLS@arts.ubc.ca Joanne Woolway Associate Editor, EMLS =============================== Early Modern Literary Studies 2.2 (August 1996) Editor's Note: *A New Universal Resource Locator for EMLS. Articles: *"And shall I die, and this unconquered?": Marlowe's Inverted Colonialism. Lisa Hopkins, Sheffield Hallam University. *New Pleasures Prove: Evidence of Dialectical Disputatio in Early Modern Manuscript Culture. Margaret Downs-Gamble,[*] Virginia Tech. *England as Israel in Milton's Writings. John K. Hale, University of Otago. Note: * Reassessing the Use of Doubling in Marston's Antonio and Mellida. Jeffrey Kahan. Reviews: * Valeria Finucci and Regina Schwartz, eds. Desire in the Renaissance: Psychoanalysis and Literature. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1994. Thomas Luxon, Dartmouth College. * Renaissance Women: Constructions of Femininity in England. Ed. Kate Aughterson. New York: Routledge, 1995. Carrie Hintz, University of Toronto. * Barbara L. Estrin. Laura: Uncovering Gender and Genre in Wyatt, Donne, and Marvell. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 1994. Nathan P. Tinker, Fordham University. * Frank Lestringant. Mapping the Renaissance World: The Geographical Imagination in the Age of Discovery. Trans. David Fausett. Berkeley: U of California P, 1994. Garrett Sullivan, Pennsylvania State University. * Kim F. Hall. Things of Darkness: Economies of Race and Gender in Early Modern England. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1995. Bernadette Andrea, West Virginia University. * Three Renaissance Travel Plays. Ed. Anthony Parr. [Revels Plays Companion Library 10]. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1995. Eric Wilson, Harvard University. * David Fausett. Writing the New World: Imaginary Voyages and Utopias of the Great Southern Land. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse UP, 1993. Gabriel de Foigny. The Southern Land, Known. Trans. and ed. David Fausett. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse UP, 1993. James R. Burns, Oriel College, Oxford. * Margaret Aston. The King's Bedpost: Reformation and Iconography in a Tudor Group Portrait. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993. Andrew Stott, University of Hertfordshire. * Eric Sams. The Real Shakespeare: Retrieving the Early Years.[*] New Haven: Yale UP, 1995. Bryan N.S. Gooch, University of Victoria. * Howard B. Norland. Drama in Early Tudor Britain 1485-1558. Lincoln, Nebraska: U of Nebraska P, 1995. James C. Cummings, University of Leeds. * Certaine Sermons or Homilies appointed to be read in Churches, in the time of the late Queene Elizabeth of famous memory (1623). Ed. Ian Lancashire. [Renaissance Electronic Texts 1.1]. U of Toronto: Centre for Computing in the Humanities, 1994. Ronald B. Bond, University of Calgary. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 09:28:25 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0668 Post-Colonial *Tempest*; "Shylock"; Cultural Materialism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0668. Tuesday, 17 September 1996. (1) From: Amy S. Green Date: Monday, 16 Sep 96 12:40:19 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0661 Q: Post-Colonial *Tempest* (2) From: Kenneth Brown Date: Monday, 16 Sep 1996 23:35:47 -0600 (MDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0645 Re: "Shylock" (3) From: David Akin Date: Tuesdat, 17 Sep 96 07:26 EDT Subj: Looking for texts on cultural materialism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy S. Green Date: Monday, 16 Sep 96 12:40:19 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0661 Q: Post-Colonial *Tempest* Re: Post-colonial stagings of the Tempest. You might want to take a look at Susan Bennett's "Performing Nostalgia: Shifting Shakespeare . . ." which includes a whole chapter on such treatments of this play. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Brown Date: Monday, 16 Sep 1996 23:35:47 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0645 Re: "Shylock" >From: Richard Sutherland >In reference to Kenneth Brown's mini-review of "Shylock," the producing company >was Bard on the Beach (which is set in Vanier Park), and the actor's name was >David BERNER, not Bergen. I did not see "Shylock," but I have had the >opportunity in the past to work with Mr. Berner (who played Fagin to my Sykes >in a production of "Oliver"), a local radio personality and actor of no mean >ability. I trust this will set the record straight. Thanks to Mr. Sutherland for correction on Mr. Berner's name, and indeed his performance of "Shylock" was excellent. The play has been published by Amble Press of Vanvouver, BC, Canada. If you wish to write Mark Leiren-Young, his email address is MleirenY@direct.ca Kenneth Brown (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Akin Date: Tuesdat, 17 Sep 96 07:26 EDT Subject: Looking for texts on cultural materialism I'm in the midst of reading the 1985 collection of essays edited by Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield called Political Shakespeare. The collection is subtitled "New essays in cultural materialism". I find the methodology and politics of the cultural materialist attractive and I should like to do some more reading about the theory. Other than the works of Raymond Williams, can anyone direct me to some of the central texts of the cultural materialist and his/her detractors, particularly as it relates to theatre and performance? David Akin jdakin@foxnet.net ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 09:34:49 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0669 Richard III (1912 version) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0669. Tuesday, 17 September 1996. From: Michael R Moore Date: Monday, 16 Sep 1996 22:11:28 -0700 (MST) Subject: Richard III (1912 version) New York Times September 17, 1996 Movie History Emerges From a Basement By BERNARD WEINRAUB HOLLYWOOD -- A film that archivists believe to be the oldest complete American feature, a 1912 version of Shakespeare's "Richard III," has been been turned over to the American Film Institute in near-perfect condition. The print had been stored for more than 30 years in the basement of a onetime theater projectionist in Portland, Ore. Produced three years before D.W. Griffith's Civil War epic, "The Birth of a Nation," "Richard III" was long thought by film historians to be lost. The film, starring Frederick Warde, a popular Shakespearean actor of the day, was the second feature produced in the United States. (The first, a version of "Oliver Twist," released in May 1912, five months before "Richard III," survives in incomplete form, with one reel missing.) The director of "Richard III," James Keane, rose to prominence in 1914 with the release of a social drama called "Money," which included a scene of starving workers storming a banquet. The discovery of "Richard III" is "like finding a Rembrandt that you didn't know existed, in somebody's closet," said Jean Picker Firstenberg, director of the American Film Institute. She said the institute planned to show the 55-minute movie on Oct. 29 in Los Angeles as part of its annual film festival, with further screenings in New York and other cities in the United States and abroad. The film's survival "complete in its original print is really astounding," said the silent-film historian Kevin Brownlow. The movie was long considered lost and "expunged from the memory," said Brownlow, the author of "The Parade's Gone By," a history of silent films. "Richard III" was one of eight American dramatic and documentary feature films released in 1912, the first year that features were made in the United States. Only five survive in any form, and of those, only "Richard III" and two others released later in the year survive in their entirety. (Film archivists define a feature film as a work of at least 40 minutes, or four reels of 35-millimeter film.) From 1895 to 1912, American companies released single-reel films, lasting 10 to 15 minutes. By all accounts, "Richard III," made by the M.B. Dudley Amusement Company, of New York City, created a splash when it was first released. Filmed in Westchester County and at City Island in the Bronx at a cost of $30,000, the film includes lavish battle scenes with a cast of hundreds, large for the day. In an interview in The Brooklyn Eagle in November 1912, Warde, the film's star, who for years had his own stage company, described his first film experience. "The staging and methods of the moving-picture people were revelations to me," he said. "I thought I knew all the tricks of acting, but their work was simply amazing to me. The director of the company simply told the other actors what to do, telling them when to look glad or sorry, when to shout and when to fight, without telling them why they did any of these things." Warde said he "had to suppress all sense of the ridiculous to go through with the thing in such surroundings." "Richard III" was given to the film institute by William Buffum, a retired flour mill manager in Portland. Buffum, 77, also was a part-time movie projectionist who had meticulously cared for the film for more than 35 years without realizing its significance. In a telephone interview, Buffum said he acquired the film around 1960 from a friend, Clifford Beckwith, in exchange for several other silent movies. Buffum said he believed that Beckwith was dead. Describing himself as a film fan since he was a teen-ager, Buffum said he began working as a projectionist in 1938, partly to earn extra money and partly because of his hobby since childhood of collecting and repairing movie projectors. At the time, he said, he and some friends began collecting feature films. "I bought a few features through ads in Popular Mechanics," he recalled. "I bought B-pictures, Tom Mix, one of them with Hedda Hopper. My friends did the same thing, and we began trading them back and forth." During World War II, Buffum was deployed as a film projectionist on Army transport ships going to Guam, the Philippines and Australia. After the war, he returned to Portland and resumed his part-time work in movie theaters. Even as he collected old films through the 1950s, Buffum said, his wife, Margaret, was "scared to death we'd have a fire," because of the highly-flammable nitrate content of the movie stock. Before 1951, 35-millimeter films for theatrical release were made of nitrocellulose, or nitrate, a chemical relative of guncotton, which is used in explosives. Around 1960, Buffum said, he gave up his remaining collection of 10 to 20 silent films in exchange for two movies from Beckwith, a rare Lon Chaney rural drama from 1919 called "When Bearcat Went Dry," and "Richard III." Last February, the Buffums decided to sell their home and donate the films to the American Film Institute. Buffum said he had read of preservation efforts of the institute, which was founded in 1967 and is supported by federal and private funds. "We had seen the films so many times that my wife liked going backward rather than forward," he said. "I had no idea that this was any different than any other old film." Buffum called the institute's office in Los Angeles, which contacted the preservation staff in Washington. Over the phone, preservationists told Buffum him how to package and mail the fragile films to the institute's vaults in Suitland, Md., outside Washington. Buffum was sent about $70 to cover the costs of mailing the films. What surprised archivists was the almost perfect condition of "Richard III." More than 70 percent of all feature films produced before the 1920's do not exist at all, institute officials said. "We kept the films very carefully," Buffum explained. "We would take them out and rewind them once a year to make sure they weren't disintegrating." During summers, the Buffums kept the films in a cement enclosure under their porch. "We were cautious," he said. "We didn't want to start a fire. We wanted to keep them in a cool place." The Lon Chaney film, though made after "Richard III," was in far worse shape. The Chaney movie has become part of the film institute's collection of the actor's films at the George Eastman House in Rochester. The original nitrate print of "Richard III" will become part of the American Film Institute's collection at the Library of Congress. The collection contains nearly 30,000 films and television shows. The preservation of the film is being financially supported by the Joseph H. Kanter Foundation, which is also paying for the composition of a musical score to accompany the film. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 09:37:07 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0670 Literature Resources for the High School and College Student Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0670. Tuesday, 17 September 1996. From: Michael Lee Groves Date: Monday, 16 Sep 1996 18:36:45 -0700 Subject: Literature Resources for the High School and College Student The "Literature Resources" site has one of the largest, if not the largest, indexed selection of authors available on the internet. In addition there are many other literature resources, references to writing resources, and a section on books on-line. The Shakespeare section is good, too. The address is: http://www.teleport.com/~mgroves/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 08:04:20 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0671 Branagh's Ham; Just Like; EMLS; "Shylock" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0671. Wednesday, 18 September 1996. (1) From: Douglas Abel Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 1996 13:00:05 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0664 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet*; Keaton's Dogberry (2) From: Janet MacLellan Winship Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 1996 10:35:09 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Just Like Romeo and Juliet (3) From: Norm Holland Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 96 14:16:02 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0667 Early Modern Literary Studies (2.2) (4) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 1996 14:41:46 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0668 "Shylock" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Abel Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 1996 13:00:05 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0664 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet*; Keaton's Dogberry It seems that a lot of people on this list, no matter what camp they put themselves in, have trouble with criticism, period. It's getting rather boring. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Janet MacLellan Winship Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 1996 10:35:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Just Like Romeo and Juliet SHAKSPEReans, Do I detect a certain snarkiness in the inquiries regarding the casting of DiCaprio and Danes as R and J? In my opinion, this casting decision is more than usually astute. Physically, Danes's height and her big-featured, un-Hollywood face accord well with the qualities of emotional maturity, honesty, and practicality that we find in Juliet's verse, while DiCaprio's high-cheekboned beauty--less earthly, more androgynous--not only harmonizes with the impassioned Petrarchanism of Romeo's poetic style, but also promises to add a certain erotic *frisson* to his relationship with Mercutio. (Is it known who will be playing Mercutio?) Of course, visual impact doesn't count for much if your actors can't act, but this is not the case with Danes and DiCaprio, who have both earned solid reviews for some quite challenging work even at this early stage in their careers. (Personally, I was especially impressed by Danes's performance as Beth in _Little Women_; she achieved a raw, compelling honesty in a role notorious for its sickly-sweet sentimentality.) I look forward to the film's release. Janet MacLellan University of Toronto (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 96 14:16:02 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0667 Early Modern Literary Studies (2.2) Can someone tell me what a PURL is? A Persistent URL? Thanks, Norm (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 1996 14:41:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0668 "Shylock" Persons interested in viewing the new play _Shylock_ in Vancouver will be delighted to know that it will be playing at the University of British Columbia on October 3 and 4. Contact the Bard Box Office for more details. Sincerely, Sean Lawrence. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 08:15:50 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0672 Re: The State of the Profession Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0672. Wednesday, 18 September 1996. (1) From: Sean K. Kelly Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 1996 16:09:46 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0665 Re: The State of the Profession (2) From: Norm Holland Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 96 14:09:49 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0665 Re: The State of the Profession (3) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 1996 14:30:20 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0665 Re: The State of the Profession (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Kelly Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 1996 16:09:46 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0665 Re: The State of the Profession Dear Fellow Professionals, As an ABD Comparitivist who is soon to be experiencing the "real" state of the profession, I feel somehow obliged to enter this discussion. Is it not the case that this discussion is able to take place because we are currently unsure/insecure about the "meaning" of the words ("state", "profession", and perhaps even the "of") that we use to respond to what we are experiencing as a real academic crisis? Why have we, as readers of both literary and cultural texts, failed as a culture to respond to the fact that the university is, in Heidegger's words, not the bricks, wall, and desks (as well as bills), but the exploration/questioning of our own linguistic being in relation to the language that we speak/read? I am sure that there is not a one of us who has entered the profession for deeply practical reasons, and yet it is the "practicalities" that we have allowed to dominate our discoure about the humanities. As I see it, the Humanities have become the site of the average. We seek to teach the average student, we desire the average faculty racial/gender make-up, we must maintain average class sizes, etc. Inspite of this, the "truth" of our calling always seems to be to the exceptional text. (I am on this list not as the average Shakespeare scholar, but as a Faulknerian/Poststructuralist who experiences Shakespeare as that which promises a linguistic sight which exceeds the average.) Let me illuminate this position: there is nothing average in even a line of Shakespeare, just as there is not an average Shakespeare that we experience as his greatness. Every reading is a singular encounter with this linguistic experience. This is our experience when we enter the "state of the profession" in its most profound form. However, we are quick to adopt the "state of the university (as brick, wall, suits, and downsizing)" as the state of our profession and thus succumb to its demands -- even in our hope beyond hope of experiencing and helping others to experience the excellence of the texts we teach and write about. How is it that we have not understood that each of these demand a certain relationship to the technology that we call thinking? While MLA continues to propogate the technology of the mediocre as the truth of the profession, we as real people are forced into dealing with this fallen notion excellence as best we can. Is it not time that we learn from our texts? The questions involving how we deal with the current state of the profession must first begin with the questions of what our profession involves. Must we deal with the ratino-technical "truths" of pigeon-holing, publication quotas for tenure, explotation of part-time faculty, etc. as givens within which we must navigate our ethico-political decisions regarding hiring, firing, promoting, etc? Is it not time that we, the literary, pay attention to the language that is being imposed upon us by those with a notion of excellence that is neither our own nor thoroughly interrogated even by itself? Ultimately, I am suggesting that we are fighting a losing battle if we choose to fight (in the classroom or with the university) on grounds which we should reject as not being our own ( even our texts -- the Shakespeare's that we love -- depend on this). How do we navigate this crisis otherwise? I am unsure. However, I am sure that we have to reconsider the state of our own profession, the state of our relationship to language itself, before we can respond on equal footing with the techno-political state of the profession that is currently being imposed upon us (even by ourselves). Sean K. Kelly SUNY Binghamton (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 96 14:09:49 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0665 Re: The State of the Profession As someone who's been in the profession forty years, I'll take it on myself to answer Lisa Broome's question about the relation between teaching and research. (Research, of course, really means publication, and precious little of that, in literary studies, anyway, requires research, only a lot of lucubration.) When I entered the profession the formula was, "You are hired for teaching and promoted for publishing." As far as I can tell, that formula still holds. Nowadays, though, there is a lot of emphasis on "demonstrating" one's teaching skills. It is my impression, though, that these demonstrations are as spurious as they always were. The real test of whether there has been any fundamental change in the formula would be to see a gifted teacher who had no publications promoted. By the way, I don't think that's a good thing at all. In my experience as professor and as chair, teaching and publication usually go together. People who are beloved as teachers but don't publish, tend to be people who don't have new ideas but do have effective stand-up routines. --Best, Norm (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 1996 14:30:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0665 Re: The State of the Profession Hello. I was rather surprised by the number of respondents to the "state of the profession" thread, who talked about a conflict *between* teaching and research. In my own experience, teaching is a useful way to explore new ideas in the company of original young minds. The process of preparing a lecture provides the fodder for what eventually becomes conference papers. Moreover, some of the best teachers I've ever known have been publishing fiends. There's something particularly inspiring about hearing someone discuss her or his own research. Besides, people who stay intellectually active by publishing usually have more to say. Cheers, Sean. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 08:20:39 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0673 Qs: Cleopatra; Madness Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0673. Wednesday, 18 September 1996. (1) From: John F. Keogh Date: Wednesday, 18 Sep 1996 07:55:48 +1000 Subj: Cleopatra (2) From: Dana Barnes Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 96 16:11:39 EDT Subj: Madness (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John F. Keogh Date: Wednesday, 18 Sep 1996 07:55:48 +1000 Subject: Cleopatra If, in Act V, Dolabella, Proculeius, and Caesar had managed to convince Cleopatra that she would not be exhibited in Rome she would not have killed herself. Such is strongly suggested by Shakespeare. How to we assess Cleopatra's behaviour in Act V? It looks like she is meeting the dead Antony not because she wants to do so but because she has no alternative. So much for the "great " love? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dana Barnes Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 96 16:11:39 EDT Subject: Madness Can anyone recommend some good articles or books discussing the theme of madness in Shakespeare's plays, plays by his contemporaries, or general information on madness in the Renaissance? Preferably nothing published before 1950. Any suggestions would be much appreciated! Thanks! Dana Barnes ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 08:22:49 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0674 Pennington, Player Kings Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0674. Wednesday, 18 September 1996. From: Andrew Walker White Date: Tuesday, 17 Sep 1996 22:29:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Pennington, Player Kings First, let me recommend highly Michael Pennington's recent book on Hamlet, subtitled "A User's Manual". I recommend it in part because I disagree so sharply with his views on the Dane -- Pennington has, very subtly, written the bulk of his text from the perspective of Claudius, the role he has spent so much time creating lately. Hamlet, needless to say, comes out looking pretty shabby, but it is a good bit more stimulating to read Pennington's knowing criticism of the character than, well, the Oedipal nonsense cooked up all those years ago by Dr. Jones ... In response to E.H. Pearlman's remarks about Charlton Heston's role in Branagh's upcoming Hamlet: Having been featured a couple times as the First Player/Player King (that's the way they've cast it where I'm from), the Fall of Troy is treated as triumphant verse. Remember, it is supposed to be regarded as sublime poetry by Hamlet, who is no slouch himself. It is, in a way, poetry squared, and is designed (IMHO) to stand out like a ruby, even in a sea of diamonds. A fine homage to the Virgil of Will's schoolboy days in Stratford. The proof of this is really in the recitation; I find it thrilling to recite those lines, not the least bit ridiculous. Without revealing my opinions on Mr. Heston's acting (and politics), I will say that I hope it brings out the best in the old man, and gives him the workout of his career. A question for those of you who have seen the Branagh promo; are there any signs of that Oedipal nonsense w/Gertrude? If so, I may not bother paying my $7 to see it come Xmas. Andy White Urbana, IL ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:06:43 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0675 Internet Theatre and Performance Studies Resources Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0675. Thursday, 19 September 1996. From: Ken McCoy Date: Wednesday, 18 Sep 1996 08:13:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Internet Theatre and Performance Studies Resources For your information, my "Brief Guide to Internet Resources in Theatre and Performance Studies What's New" page (updated September 16) is now available. It can be accessed via the theatre guide (see below) or directly at: http://www.stetson.edu/~csata/new0996.html I hope you'll stop by. Ken ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:13:16 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0676 Re: Pennington, Player Kings; Just Like R&J Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0676. Thursday, 19 September 1996. (1) From: Charles Ross Date: Wednesday, 18 Sep 1996 10:15:27 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0674 Pennington, Player Kings (2) From: Jimmy Jung Date: Wednesday, 18 Sep 1996 11:46am Subj: RE: Just Like R&J (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Ross Date: Wednesday, 18 Sep 1996 10:15:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0674 Pennington, Player Kings Re: the recently alleged sublimity of the Fall of Troy speech in Hamlet. The speech is written to be not magnificent but magnificently second rate. The image of Priam falling due only to the whiff and wind of Pyrrhus' sword is wonderfully absurd. That a good actor can make this stuff sound great may explain why some people accept the recent attribution of the Funeral Elegy to Shakespeare (although we might posit a scenario in which Shakespeare deliberately holds back on his powers to compose a second rate poem). Charles Ross Purdue Univ. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jimmy Jung Date: Wednesday, 18 Sep 1996 11:46am Subject: RE: Just Like R&J Janet asked, "Do I detect a certain snarkiness in the inquiries regarding the casting of DiCaprio and Danes as R and J?" No, I think it's pretty cool, and I think some of the recent criticism regarding Keaton and Heston smacks of elitism. We are talking about Hollywood, they are trying to entertain and make a buck. From the internet movie database at Jesse Bradford Balthasar Claire Danes Juliet Brian Dennehy Ted Montague Leonardo DiCaprio Romeo Jamie Kennedy Sampson Vincent Laresca Abra John Leguizamo Tybalt Carlos Martin Manzo Petruchio Miriam Margolyes Nurse Dash Mihok Benvolio Zak Orth Gregory Harold Perrineau Mercutio Christina Pickles Pete Postlethwaite Father Laurence Paul Stephen Rudd Dave Paris Paul Sorvino Fulgencio Capulet Diane Venora Gloria Capulet M. Emmet Walsh Apothecary ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:15:11 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0677 Q: Chandos Portrait Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0677. Thursday, 19 September 1996. From: Louis Marder <76411.3613@CompuServe.COM> Date: Wednesday, 18 Sep 96 18:56:25 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0588 Chandos Portrait Re: Taylor as painter of the Chandos. Do we know of Taylor as a painter? JT was a popular name, i.e., JT "The Water Poet." Did he know Shakespeare? What were the circumstances, etc., etc. L. Marder ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:17:22 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0678 CFP: The Future(s) of Editing Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0678. Thursday, 19 September 1996. From: Andrew Murphy Date: Wednesday, 18 Sep 1996 16:35:43 +0100 (BST) Subject: Editing Please feel free to crosspost the following, as appropriate * Call for Papers ESSE 4, Debrecen, Hungary 6-10 September 1997 Session on 'The Future(s) of Editing' The European Society for the Study of English (ESSE) will hold its fourth international conference at Debrecen, Hungary in September 1997. Unlike previous conferences, ESSE/4 will run as a series of seminars, with papers being circulated to seminar participants in advance, for roundtable discussion at the seminar session itself. While the primary mission of the conference is to strengthen links among European scholars, participation from scholars based outside of Europe is welcomed. Abstracts are invited for potential contributions to a seminar panel on 'The Future(s) of Editing'. Papers should broadly tackle the issue of new directions for the business of editing as we enter a new century. Participants may want to consider the ways in which the orthodoxies of the New Bibliographic tradition have come increasingly to be interrogated in recent decades, with the rise of revisionism; social and sociological theories of textuality; deconstruction; postmodernism and other developments. In particular, participants may wish to consider the implications for editing of the rise of the electronic text -- especially as hypertext promises radically to reconfigure our notions of what constitutes a text. It is hoped that a selection of the papers discussed at the seminar, supplemented by additional contributions, will be published as a book. As this is a seminar, rather than a regular conference session, anyone interested in taking part should send either a substantial abstract (c. 1,500 words) or a completed paper to: Dr. Andrew Murphy English Department University of Hertfordshire Watford Campus Aldenham Watford Herts WD2 8AT UK The deadline for receipt of papers/abstracts is 31 January, 1997. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:21:47 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0679 Non Angli, sed Angeley. Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0679. Thursday, 19 September 1996. From: Tom Bishop Date: Wednesday, 18 Sep 1996 14:03:06 -0400 Subject: Non Angli, sed Angeley. Dear Friends, Last week I attended "Jacob and Joseph", the nearest thing to a genuine contemporary cycle-play I am ever likely to see. I thought I'd share with you my impressions of this extraordinary event. Rev. Ernest Angely's 4-hour production of a script by the Lord God Himself was truly astounding. You cannot imagine. You cannot even begin to conceive. It was amazing. I was speechless. Never have I seen such inspired, such sublime drivel. And --joy of joys-- the Rev. himself did the narration (in the historic present, as though they were stage directions). Confusion now hath made his masterpiece! The Grace Cathedral, the play's venue, is a huge semicircular open-plan auditorium with a stage curving across the long side. Behind the stage is an enormous gold-lame curtain which rises in loops and pouches all the way along for "discoveries". Centre hangs a golden crown (Angeley's logo). Stage right is a large canvas open tent. Stage left a pile of stones. Other sets rise from (yes!) a trapdoor center. Pharoah sits on a huge winged throne while bald eunuchoids fan him with large purple fans, a la Cleopatra. Behind the whole is a set of steps on which the choir will appear to punctuate the proceedings with rousing songs such as "Deceit deceit will bring defeat" (repeated at strategic intervals throughout) and "The Joseph lovesong". Rev. Angeley himself sits modestly behind a console way left from which he narrates and supervises. My favorite moments? Oh, help me Muse! The way Jacob barked to Esau: "You have sold ME your BIRTHright and canNOT get it BACK. E-ver!" The stick-on goatskins (for those instant hairy forearms). The way we could tell why Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah because Leah had no dress-sense and a lousy hairdo while Rachel had a snazzy purple outfit and a auburn-highlighted perm. The stuffed leopard that somehow managed to form part of the decor in Laban's tent, along with the four menorahs and the half-dozen small brass camels (a.k.a. pagan idols). The odd interpretive decision to have Rachel pregnant with Joseph as she sat on her father's gods and announced "it is with me after the manner of women". Jacob's ladder: two ladders stretching up into the flies with angels in white dresses going up one side and down the other (but switching over at the top where you could see their feet) while the choir sang and supernumerary angels waved penlight torches in random patterns in front. This went on for about 5 minutes. The Angel who wrestled, with his "straight-out-of-Star-Trek with the chasing lights all through the material" costume so that he looked in the dark like a nebulous Xmas tree with a head floating on the top. The "Joseph lovesong" which, in the jauntiest manner possible, proceded to tell us how much his brothers hated Joseph and how they conspired to put him in a pit etc... The "flat man" pictograms on Potiphar's sedan chair (to show we were now in Egypt, right?). Were they ads for Potiphar's business? Everything to do with Potiphar's wife. In red silk pajamas, lying on an orange chintz ottoman, in a high whining voice: "Joseph, Joseph, come LIE with me. WHY do you serve the god of the HE-brews? Worship OUR gods and you can have (stroking her calves seductively) ALL you de-SIRE." The Way-a Pharoah-a spoke-a tre--men--douss-lyy slow-ly-a and-a as-a if-a he had-a a nast-ya case of em--phys--ee-maaaa. (Pharoah's dream took about 15 minutes to narrate when deivered in this style.) How when Jacob came to Egypt bringing all his people, a long line of "people" (never referred to) passed across the stage, and then went round the back and joined the end of the line to pass through again. The VERY fluffy beards that made Jacob's sons look like the women disguised as men from "The Life of Brian" Joseph's INTERMINABLE death scene, in which (again wheezing horribly) his head would loll forward only to rise again seconds later with yet another *completely incomprehensible* exhortation. And --wonder of wonders -- when he finally died, lo if he didnt keel over sideways VERY VERY slowly until his head finally hit the bench. Whereupon instantly all the assembled Israelites (about 100, including children) burst into violent lamentation that continued for about 5 minutes while the choir sang a rockin' upbeat country gospel number entitled "I'm Goin' Home". I lost it completely and had to feign coughing. Could I make this up? I ask you, could I? All this followed by a genuine prayer from the Rev. himself, dressed in his nattiest threads, where we had to all hold up our hands and repeat after him ("Thank you Jesus! Thank you Jesus! Thank you Jesus!") I laughed until I cried all the way home. I'm still sore. Tom Bishop Case Western Reserve University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:22:54 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0680 Re: Old Criticism and Madness Query Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0680. Friday, 20 September 1996. (1) From: David Lindley Date: Thursday, 19 Sep 1996 07:54:13 GMT Subj: Re: 'old criticism' (2) From: James J. Hill, Jr. Date: Thursday, 19 Sep 1996 15:56:55 -0500 (EST) Subj: madness query (3) From: Hilary Zunin Date: Thursday, 19 Sep 1996 22:08:53, -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0673 Q: Madness (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Thursday, 19 Sep 1996 07:54:13 GMT Subject: Re: 'old criticism' It is interesting, and symptomatic, that Dana Barnes should want to construct a reading list which excludes material published before 1950 (though even this is generous compared with many who would exclude anything since 1984). Is there no place for the criticism and, especially, the scholarship of the earlier part of the century? It's often humbling to go back and realise that our forbears were there before us. Perhaps members of the list would care to nominate pre-1950 books that they still find significant and important in their thinking about Shakespeare and his period? David Lindley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James J. Hill, Jr. Date: Thursday, 19 Sep 1996 15:56:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: madness query In response to Dan Barnes' query about recent information on madness in Renaissance drama, perhaps a good place to start would be *Madness and Drama in the Age of Shakespeare* by Duncan Salkeld (New York: Manchester UP, 1993). (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hilary Zunin Date: Thursday, 19 Sep 1996 22:08:53, -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0673 Q: Madness Re: madness - Why nothing prior to 1950? Start with Robert Burton's *Anatomy of Melancholy* (1621) for some fascinating insights into Renaissance notions of madness. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:25:52 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0681 Re: EMLS 2.2 / PURL / SHAKSPER Archive Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0681. Friday, 20 September 1996. From: R.G. Siemens Date: Thursday, 19 Sep 1996 09:06:26 -0700 Subject: EMLS 2.2 / PURL / SHAKSPER Archive In response to Norm Holland's note regarding PURLs, a PURL is like a URL except that instead of pointing one directly at a resource, it points to a service which then re-directs one to that resource. Thus, the PURL http://purl.oclc.org/emls/emlshome.html will, today and for the next few weeks, redirect to the URL http://unixg.ubc.ca:7001/0/e-sources/emls/emlshome.html In the coming weeks, when EMLS must change servers within its sponsoring institution (UBC) and as a consequence must also change its URL, the PURL can still consistently direct users to our site. In this way, a PURL is a useful thing; while exact URLs might change with system reconfigurations and the like, a PURL can remain stable, the exact URL to which it redirects being simply updated. The locational instability of many WWW sites is a bit of a contentious issue in some circles, but PURLs seem a good measure to make up for this instability at this time. For EMLS, which is accessed by roughly 100 unique users per day, a stable access point -- even if through a PURL -- is essential. More information on PURLs can be found at the OCLC site: http://purl.oclc.org/ SHAKSPER members might also like to know that Interactive EMLS -- a section of EMLS that houses Resources, Postprints, Preprints, and Conference Materials -- also houses a SHAKSPER Discussion List Archive, which can be found at http://purl.oclc.org/emls/iemls/shak/shak-L.html As well, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank in advance our many readers for their patience with EMLS' upcoming move. Yours, Ray Siemens ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:27:48 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0682 Announcement: 1995-1996 Rosenbach Lectures Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0682. Friday, 20 September 1996. From: Daniel Traister Date: Thursday, 19 Sep 1996 17:31:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 1995-1996 Rosenbach Lectures: Announcement The University of Pennsylvania Library presents THE A. S. W. ROSENBACH LECTURES IN BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1995-1996 The History of Text Three Dialogues between Ivan Illich and Ludolf Kuchenbach (Fern University, Germany) 1. October 23 From Text to the Textus of Antiquity 2. October 24 Sacra Pagine: From Tertullian to Hugh of St. Victor 3. October 25 The Text as Instrumentum Each program begins at 5:30 P.M. in the Lessing J. Rosenwald Gallery, 6th floor, Van Pelt-Dietrich Library, 3420 Walnut Street, Philadelphia RSVPs appreciated: 215 898 7088. Parking is available at Walnut and 36th Streets. For more information, call the Department of Special Collections, 215 898 7552. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:48:37 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0683 Re: Cleopatra; Dogberry; Non Angli, sed Angeley. Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0683. Friday, 20 September 1996. (1) From: John F. Keogh Date: Friday, 20 Sep 1996 07:36:22 +1000 Subj: Cleopatra (2) From: David Evett Date: Thursday 19 Sep 1996 14:20 ET Subj: SHK 7.0676 Re: Pennington, Play (3) From: Joanne Walen Date: Thursday, 19 Sep 1996 20:01:05 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0679 Non Angli, sed Angeley. (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John F. Keogh Date: Friday, 20 Sep 1996 07:36:22 +1000 Subject: Cleopatra My reasons for questioning Cleopatra's motives for killing herself: As soon as Antony hears of Cleopatra"s [supposed] death he says: "Unarm Eros, the long days's task is done and we must sleep." and he straight away tries to kill himself. Life without her is nothing. Consider Cleopatra. When Antony dies in her arms she makes her wonderful statement: "The soldier's pole is fall'n: young boys and girls Are level now with men. The odds is gone And there is nothing left remarkable Beneath the visiting moon" She faints, recovers and says: "We'll bury him; and then what's brave, what's noble, Let's do it after the high Roman fashion, And make death proud to take us" BUT SHE DOESN'T 1. She sends an Egyptian to treat with Caesar. 2. She talks to Proculeius, agreeing to meet Caesar. 3. She allows herself to get captured and discovers from Dolabella that Caesar means to show her off in Rome. 4. She has taken the time and trouble to list [falsely] her treasure. 5. Seleucus lets her down. 6. Caesar tries to reassure her that he will treat her well, and leaves. Cleopatra: "He words me, girls, he words me that I should not be true to mysself." Antony is not mentioned. She is going to kill herself now not because she wishes to rush into the arms of her dead lover but because she knows Caesar is lying and that she WILL be led through Rome in triumph. Only as she is preparing to die: "I am again for Cydnus, to meet Mark Antony." does she mention her lover. Of course she dies wonderfully. The sublime "Give me my robe. . . " speech is full of Antony and her love for him and what has gone before is overwhelmed. Would it have ever been spoken if Dolabella had convinced her that Caesar would let her live in peace in Egypt. Or if she had believed Caesar? Would she not have lived to fight and to love another day and possibly another man? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Thursday 19 Sep 1996 14:20 ET Subject: SHK 7.0676 Re: Pennington, Play I doubt me that it's elitist to flinch before a performance (Michael Keaton's) that turns plumb stately Dogberry into a bag, a forest full of neurotic tics--vectoring Harry Lyme disease? Which is by no means to sneer a priori at movie actors' assaying Shakespearean roles--or to condone critics who do indeed scorn performances they have not yet seen. Twitchily, Dave Evett (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Thursday, 19 Sep 1996 20:01:05 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0679 Non Angli, sed Angeley. Tom Bishop-- >the nearest thing to a genuine contemporary cycle-play I am >ever likely to see. Your description of this "presentation" was pretty funny, too. But on a more serious note, triggered by your term cycle-play, is this note that the RSC's 96-97 season at Stratford will include *Everyman* and *The Mysteries: The Creation and The Passion*. Each of these last will be performed as a separate play and "in the original rich and thrilling language." That, too, is an opportunity that doesn't come around very often. Joanne Walen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:50:49 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0684 Q: Nuttall's _Why does Tragedy give Pleasure?_ Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0684. Friday, 20 September 1996. From: Simon Malloch Date: Friday, 20 Sep 1996 20:27:25 +0800 (WST) Subject: Nuttall's _Why does Tragedy give Pleasure?_ Just wondering if anyone has read A.D. Nuttall's new book _Why does Tragedy give Pleasure?_ (I believe he discusses Shakespeare, among others). Can someone please outline the format of the book - is it all Nuttall's work, or is he just editor? What sort of writers are covered? etc. Any contributions appreciated, Simon Malloch. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:53:59 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0685 Shakespeare Position Announcement Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0685. Friday, 20 September 1996. From: James Harner Date: Friday, 20 Sep 1996 9:32:11 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Shakespeare Position Announcement Subject to budgetary approval, the English Department at Texas A&M will hire, for Fall 1997, a tenure-track assistant professor who can teach Shakespeare in a large-enrollment introductory course, in a small-group honors section, in an advanced undergraduate English majors course, and in a grad- uate seminar. In addition, the person we hire will have the opportunity to assume, eventually, an editorial role with the annual World Shakespeare Bibliography (Shakespeare Quarterly) and World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM (Cambridge UP). Candidates must have a dissertation entirely--or VERY substantially--devoted to Shakespeare. The person we hire can expect strong support for his/her research program. The extensive working library of the World Shakespeare Bibliography includes several thousand theater programs and related materials, thousands of offprints and copies of articles, and full runs of both standard and obscure periodicals; the University Library has made Shakespeare a major focus of its collection development program; and the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center is a short drive. Candidates must have the Ph.D. in hand by August 1997 and demonstrate a strong commitment to excellence in teaching and research; preference will be given to those with publications on Shakespeare. Prospective candidates can find out more about the department by visiting our website at http://www- english.tamu.edu. Send a letter of application and curriculum vitae-- postmarked by 5 November--to James L. Harner, Search Committee Chair, Department of English, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4227. Interviews will be conducted at the MLA convention. Texas A&M University, an AA/EEO employer, encourages applications from women and minority candidates. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 08:20:54 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0686 [was 8SHK 7.066] Re: Old Criticism; Non Angli; Nuttall's *Tragedy* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0686. Sunday, 22 September 1996. (1) From: Moray McConnachie Date: Friday, 20 Sep 1996 22:24:27 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0680 Re: Old Criticism and Madness Query (2) From: Tom Bishop Date: Friday, 20 Sep 1996 18:14:07 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0683 Re: Non Angli, sed Angeley. (3) From: John Drakakis Date: Saturday, 21 Sep 1996 00:38:00 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0684 Q: Nuttall's _Why does Tragedy give Pleasure?_ (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Moray McConnachie Date: Friday, 20 Sep 1996 22:24:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0680 Re: Old Criticism and Madness Query Perhaps one reason the scholarship of earlier generations is so often excluded is simply a question of volume. There comes a point at which no one person *can* have read and thoroughly absorbed the entire critical debate about Spenser, say. But if critical debate ceases to take particular account of its origins, then the old round can be trodden without the disappointing realisation that others have thought what we think new and ours. Of course, David Lindley is right, it is humbling to find one's predecessors ahead on points. And that's exactly why, perhaps, some won't read them any more. Moray McConnachie (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Bishop Date: Friday, 20 Sep 1996 18:14:07 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0683 Re: Non Angli, sed Angeley. In regard to Joanne Whalen's announcement of the RSC's intention to present "Everyman" and "The Mysteries" in their next season, I can only applaud their decision. (Is this Tony Harrison's text of the cycles that was so beautifully done at the National Theater ten years ago, now available on videotape and well worth the purchase?). But what interested me about Rev. Angeley's production was that it was a new text done with contemporary resources for and by a contemporary community of believers, which cannot be said about either the regular Toronto offerings or the RSC venture. That what I saw was terrible was, I felt, a reflection of the overdeveloped reverence the whole thing showed towards the text (no Herod raging "in the street also" alas), and of my own now-unavoidable sophistication about anachronism and theatrical style. But to what extent might the surviving Chester or York cycles have been held hokey and laughable by a perhaps more sophisticated urban, increasingly humanist-educated audience, if they ever got to see them? Does Pyramus and Thisbe figure at all in this question? (And wasn't it Chaucer's hick Absalom who played Herod to impress the ladies?) Tom (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Saturday, 21 Sep 1996 00:38:00 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0684 Q: Nuttall's _Why does Tragedy give Pleasure?_ For Simon Mallach, No, this is an authored book rather than a collection. Nuttall begins with some close textual analysis of Aristotle, and then proceeds to an analysis of issues which will be familiar to students of Tragedy. He ends with an account of King Lear. Nuttall's book is judicious rather than radical in its analysis. He asks some important questions but the answers he gives are less impressive than the questions themselves. It's a book that has the virtue of being short, and pithy. I think for anyone interested in Tragedy it is worth reading. Much more interesting, and far more radical however, is Alternative Shakespeares 2 edited by Terence Hawkes. Reading this volume alongside Nuttall will offer some indication of just how far radical Shakespeare Studies has come. Enjoy both. John Drakakis ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 13:36:07 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0687 Re: Contemporary Cycle Play Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0687. Monday, 23 September 1996. From: Aloysius A. Norton Date: Sunday, 22 Sep 1996 22:05:31 +0100 Subject: Contemporary Cycle Play It's stretching it a bit to mock someone's faith and sincerity under the guise of a contemporary 'cycle play' being relevant to a Shakespeare Listserv. I found the letter from a guy going through life with the name "Bishop" to be quite offensive, and inappropriate to an edited/moderated list. If this message offends, anyone, please drop me from your list. Aloysius A. Norton ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 13:37:57 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0688 Q: Applause Facsimile Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0688. Monday, 23 September 1996. From: Andrew Murphy Date: Monday, 23 Sep 1996 11:45:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: Applause Facsimile I missed the Globe conference this year, but I've heard that, in launching the new edition of Hinman's F1, the Norton rep claimed that the Applause facsimile had been withdrawn because it was in breech of copyright. Does anyone on the list know anything about this (for instance, whose copyright does it violate, exactly)? Does this mean that my copy of the Applause is now a collector's item! Andrew Murphy University of Hertfordshire ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 08:03:42 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0689 Productions: *Romeo and Juliet*; *All's Well* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0689. Tuesday, 24 September 1996. (1) From: Kate Thompson Date: Monday, 23 Sep 96 17:47:57 UT Subj: RE: SHK 7.0676 Re: Just Like R&J (2) From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 23 Sep 1996 15:28:08 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0642 Q: *All's Well (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kate Thompson Date: Monday, 23 Sep 96 17:47:57 UT Subject: RE: SHK 7.0676 Re: Just Like R&J Re: the casting of Romeo and Juliet Looks like they've done a pretty good job. Both Danes and DiCaprio are bright young people. They've shown on many occasions that they are able to handle complex characters and difficult language. I'm quite curious to see how they handle verse. (Or will they cut "Gallop apace..." as was done in the Zeffirelli R&J?) Any cast including such skilled stage actors as Brian Dennehy and Diane Venora is likely to have some "good bits" to make it worth the admission price. Whether it will be a useful educational tool is an entirely different question. IMO, since it's not another Zeffirelli extravaganza (all looks, no content...not even the original Shakespeare sometimes), it's worth giving a chance. It's not fair to condemn a performer because you haven't seen them do something before. Many actors on soap operas have a classical background -- just because they've decided to do work that pays doesn't mean that they should be looked down upon or thought of as less skilled. My .02.... Kate Thompson Toronto symkate@msn.com (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 23 Sep 1996 15:28:08 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0642 Q: *All's Well > My University is kicking off the season with a production of All's Well >That Ends Well. I plan to audition for the part of the Countess of >Rousillon. I'm a playwright/actor. It is my feeling that the plot of this >play is one of Shakespeare weakest especially in the Diana/Helena switch >(and they thought they developed the scheming look alike on Dallas.) It >seems to, I don't know, contrived. What are your thoughts? It also bothers >me the way the title is said two or three times towards the end of the play. >Again, any thoughts? Anyone seem any interesting productions of this play? I directed *All's Well* a couple of years ago, and found (as is often the case with "problem" plays) that some of its apparent difficulties turn out to be its virtues. One example is the artificiality of much of the play. I feel that Shakespeare is consciously, theatrically manipulating and twisting the traditional fairy-tale formula in order to show its inadequacy as a "mirror of the times." The play seems to me to enact a hard collision between fairy-tale magic and gritty reality, so the contrived, artificial portions are an important part of the mix. Incidentally, I chose to see the play as an aging Shakespeare's cynical attack on the callowness and self-centredness of Jacobean youth (which probably can translate as "an aging David Skeele's cynical attack on the callowness and self-centredness of Slippery Rock frat boys"). The visual style of the production stressed generational battle, with a beautifully marbled set that had crude graffiti spray-painted onto it, and stainless steel platforms incongruously grafted on. The costumes featured a sort of glittery, elegant version of pre-Raphaelite for the older generation and a sort of romanticized contemporary soldier/biker for the young'uns (for instance, the soldiers wore black jeans and Doc Martens. Shirtless, they wore black satin vests and camouflage cummerbunds). At any rate, I found that the problem with the "bed trick" was not that it was too contrived, but that it might be easy for an audience to miss--it is a vital plot point, and it merely gets talked about a couple of times before it happens. My "solution" was to substitute a dumb-show (replacing about half of the Dumaine's dialogue about the subject) in which the audience actually gets to see the event taking place (well, more or less). Bertram's soldier buddies escort him Diana's door, hooting and hollering their encouragement and blasting loud electric guitar. Diana appears, makes him don a blindfold (to the derision of his buddies), and escorts him inside. While the soldiers cavort, Diana is seen to slip away. Bertram reemerges, with "Diana's" panties in hand. After much male celebration, the guys all leave, and Helena, apparently naked under a blanket, emerges. Diana reenters, and Helena proudly brandishes the ring as the music ends. This made the plot point crystal-clear, and went a long way toward establishing my point about the aggression and crudity of the crowd from whom Bertram is eventually saved. The single biggest problem I had (considering the inexperience of most of my actors) was the sort of gnomic sing-song of much of the verse--particularly in the King/Helena scenes. It took a long time for the two actors to bring urgency and meaning to lines that initially sound like the recitation of nursery-rhymes. Well, a long-winded response to a simple question. The Countess is a fairly delicious role, and I wish you a lot of luck in getting it, Cindy. Best Wishes, David Skeele Slippery Rock University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 08:10:27 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0690 Re: Old Criticism; State of Profession/Criticism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0690. Tuesday, 24 September 1996. (1) From: Tom Bishop Date: Monday, 23 Sep 1996 15:49:06 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0680 Re: Old Criticism (2) From: Thomas Ruddick Date: Monday, 23 Sep 96 15:34:13 EST Subj: State of Profession/Criticism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Bishop Date: Monday, 23 Sep 1996 15:49:06 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0680 Re: Old Criticism >It is interesting, and symptomatic, that Dana Barnes should want to construct a >reading list which excludes material published before 1950 (though even this is >generous compared with many who would exclude anything since 1984). Is there >no place for the criticism and, especially, the scholarship of the earlier part >of the century? It's often humbling to go back and realise that our forbears >were there before us. Perhaps members of the list would care to nominate >pre-1950 books that they still find significant and important in their thinking >about Shakespeare and his period? David Lindley's challenge seems to me a useful exercise in mental hygiene, so here's my response. These are off the top of my head or off the shelf, and sticking only to the present century. Chambers and Bradley, Shaw and Empson. Early work of Bradbrook, Wilson Knight, F.P. Wilson, Rossiter and Harbage. Louis B. Wright's invaluable book on Middle-Class Culture, Baldwin on Elizabethan schooling, Boas on University Drama, Hillebrand on the boy companies, Baskerville on the Jig and Welsford on the Fool, and Kernodle's "From Art to Theatre" also come to mind. Also Francis Fergusson's "Idea of a Theater". I find Basil Willey's "Seventeenth Century Background" a very valuable book to refer students to. And for sparking discussion, Lytton Strachey's "Elizabeth and Essex". I note that many of these are "old historicist" empiricist histories. I admire the application and thoroughness of these workers in the vineyard, and am deeply grateful to them for saving me from having to do that sort of archival hoeing and harrowing myself. Sometimes I feel they get too little credit for it, since so much that we do now depends on their having done what they did, and done it mostly well. I'm sure I've left off some vital things, but that's all I can get from a swift look around my shelves and through my mental files. I'll be interested to see how others respond. I guess this is rather like Bill Godshalk's question about the State of the Profession, "through a glass darkly". Tom Bishop (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Ruddick Date: Monday, 23 Sep 96 15:34:13 EST Subject: State of Profession/Criticism This seemed to me relevant to the ongoing discussion of the state of the profession on this list (which I take to mean literary scholars and not performers nor dilletants). On 17 Sept. Douglas Abel responded to those who took umbrage at his unkind comments toward some actors (particularly myself, since his comments are written to mirror mine): > It seems that a lot of people on this list, no matter what camp they put > themselves in, have trouble with criticism, period. It's getting rather > boring. I've been unable to respond promptly, and I've seen no one else take issue with this statement. Further I think it speaks to more widespread problems in the profession of literary scholarship. So I'll assume that there's general acceptance of his statement as innocuous, and I'll take it on from that angle-- Douglas, from your comments I see you fail to differentiate between criticism and opinion. Opinion is the personal reaction you might have to your experiences, and yours is just as valid as anyone's (that includes any high school dropouts you might encounter, so don't take that as praise). Criticism, on the other hand, is characterized by an informed analysis of the experience, undertaken with the intent to assist the artist in improving future efforts or to improve the understanding and appreciation of the audience. Your personal opinion of Michael Keaton's performance, when presented, encourages others to trumpet their dissenting opinions as they wish. I trumpeted mine--indulging in just a little criticism by pointing out that I saw some echoes of Kemp (as I understand him to have been--historical accounts being imperfect) in that performance. I was heartened to see that my embryonic criticism inspired someone else to question my assumptions (apologies to someone else for not having recorded your name), and to assert merrily that Keaton was more in the tradition of the Three Stooges--who themselves might be seen as in the tradition of Kemp. Thus criticism and opinion can be seen yielding different results. Opinions lead to disagreement--criticism invites scholarly argument where (in the best cases) something is learned. From my secure perspective outside the profession of literary scholarship, I wonder if some of the problems of the profession--relevance, demand--have to do with too many lecturers and researchers who devote themselves to promoting personal opinions rather than engaging in rigorous criticism. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 08:15:18 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0691 Re: Contemporary Cycle Play Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0691. Tuesday, 24 September 1996. (1) From: Norman J. Myers Date: Monday, 23 Sep 1996 16:05:45 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0687 Re: Contemporary Cycle Play (2) From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Monday, 23 Sep 1996 17:06:15 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0687 Re: Contemporary Cycle Play (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman J. Myers Date: Monday, 23 Sep 1996 16:05:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0687 Re: Contemporary Cycle Play >It's stretching it a bit to mock someone's faith and sincerity under the guise >of a contemporary 'cycle play' being relevant to a Shakespeare Listserv. I >found the letter from a guy going through life with the name "Bishop" to be >quite offensive, and inappropriate to an edited/moderated list. If this >message offends, anyone, please drop me from your list. > > Aloysius A. Norton I accidentally deleted the posting cited by Aloysius Norton. I'm sorry I did because I, too, found "Bishop"'s posting somewhat inappropriate. Not only that but he seems to have missed a rare opportunity to address an important question (if not appropriate for SHAKSPER certainly for "Perform", the Medieval Theatre discussion list), namely: the relationship between a production and its *intended* audience. If the extensive documentation we have is at all accurate, many of the revered Medieval religious plays (not to mention those of Shakespeare and the others) were mounted with what might appear to us as equal garishness and ridiculousness. I can quite imagine that the Medieval audiences were just as moved and thrilled by their "cycle plays" as the present-day churchgoers might have been by theirs. I imagine, too, that there were the scoffers then. "Judge not, etc." Norman Myers Theatre Bowling Green State University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Monday, 23 Sep 1996 17:06:15 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0687 Re: Contemporary Cycle Play Alas, Aloysius Norton seems to think my name requires me to defer to all expressions of religious zeal no matter how clumsy. I'm sure that both Cardinal Torquemada and John Calvin were faithful and sincere in their respective protestations. This does not mean I am obliged to endorse their actions. But as it happens, I hope it was clear to most readers that it is not the faith and sincerity of Rev. Angeley and his flock that I find absurd. Indeed, I believe in both respects they are often far ahead of me, and am not without my moments of admiration on that score. No, it is only their -dramatic skill- that I find worthy of comment. And on that score, I am as prepared to be moved by a religious play as any true believer: I found the National Theatre's production of "The Mysteries" one of the most moving works I have ever seen, even on videotape, and would recommend it to anyone interested in what the modern theater can do with religious material. Shall we now discuss how cruel Duke Theseus and Shakespeare are to make fun of Nick Bottom and the Rude Mechanicals? At least I sat through "Jacob and Joseph" in (mostly) silence. I gotta go write my review of the local Sunday School pageant. Cheers, Tom ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 08:21:24 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0692 Malone Society Membership: Special SHAKSPER Offer Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0692. Tuesday, 24 September 1996. From: Thomas L. Berger Date: Monday, 23 Sep 1996 15:58:53 EDT Subject: Malone Society Membership The Malone Society seeks new members. Founded in 1906, the Malone Society was named after Edmond Malone, editor of the first variorum edition of Shakespeare. The Soceity's first General Editor was W. W. Greg. Now under the editorship of Roger Holdsworth, it continues to publish editions of early modern plays from manuscript, photographic facsimiles of printed plays of the period, and editions of original odcuments related to the drama. These volumes, all of which contain material not readily available elsewhere, maintain the high standard of accuracy for which the Society is renowned. They are indispensable to serious student of British drama. SPECIAL "SHAKSPER" OFFER As part of its ongoing membership drive, the Malone Society is offering new members two special "packages": (1) 2-4-1 (two for one): Enroll as a member for 1996, and the membership will include the forthcoming 1996 volume, dramatic pieces by William Cavendish preserved among the Portland mauscripts in the Hallward Library at the University of Nottingham, edited by Lynn Hulse. As well, members will receive the 1995 volume, A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM, a facsimile of the first quarto edition of 1600, prepared by Thomas L. Berger. $27.00 (U.S.) / $35.00 (Canada) (2) 3-4-1.5 (three for one and one-half) Enroll as a member for 1996, and the membership will include the 1996 volume, plus one of the following: a. A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM (1600) a facsimile of the first quarto; b. HYMEN'S TRIUMPH, by Samuel Daniel, edited from manuscript by John Pitcher c. TOM A LINCOLN, edited from a British Library manuscript by Richard Proudfoot. $45.00 (U.S.) / $56.00 (Canada) Members also receive positively silly discounts on back volumes, special treatment at the Malone Society Dance, and the (incalculable) good will of Tom Berger and Ted McGee. Please send enquiries, or, better, a check, to Thomas L. Berger C.E. McGee Department of English Department of English St. Lawrence Universtiy Univ. of St. Jerome's College Canton, NY 13617 Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G3 U.S.A. CANADA Thanks, Tom Berger (TBER@MUSIC.STLAWU.EDU) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 10:15:31 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0693 SHAKSPER Ether Demon Alert Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0693. Tuesday, 24 September 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, September 24, 1996 Subject: SHAKSPER Ether Demon Alert Dear SHAKSPEReans, During the past few days, several members have inquired about not seeing their submissions posted to the Conference. From all appearances, there is an ether demon at work, and I do not as yet have a clue about what has happened. We did have some work on the campus network recently, but I cannot be sure of the cause of so many lost submissions. Let me take a moment to comment on my procedures. I try to turn around submissions within a day (sometime two on weekends). If for any reason I decide not to post a submission, I inform the submitter of such and my reasons for rejecting it. So if you send me something and do not see it the following day, I probably did not receive it and you should resubmit. Any submissions sent to the list address -- SHAKSPER@ws.BowieState.edu -- are forwarded to me at HMCook@boe00.minc.umd.edu. You may decide to send your submissions directly to me at this latter address, a VAX account. I have other accounts, but I have decided for the time being to continue to use the VAX account for SHAKSPER editing rather than using an account on the SUN work station or my principal University account. I am sorry that submissions have been lost recently, and I will continue to monitor the situation. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 10:34:53 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0694 More on Contemporary Cycles Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0694. Wednesday, 25 September 1996. (1) From: David M Richman Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 1996 10:54:04 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Non Angli (2) From: Aloysius A. Norton Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 1996 11:54:28 +0100 Subj: Humor (3) From: Rinda Frye Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 96 14:01:03 EDT Subj: Contemporary Cycle Play (4) From: Dale Lyles Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 1996 22:28:26 -0400 Subj: More on Contemporary Cycles (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 1996 10:54:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Non Angli A mundane query for Tom Bishop, or anyone else who knows. How does one acquire the videotape of the National Theatre version of the Tony Harrison adaptation of the medieval plays? Isn't there always tension between the popular--even the laughable--and the learned and subtle in the plays that last? I sometimes wonder if bad theatre is, then and now, part of the price of great theatre. Doesn't Hamlet owe a debt to the croaking raven, as well as to Montaigne? This is a simple and obvious question, but maybe it needs to be asked once in a while. David Richman University of New Hampshire (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Aloysius A. Norton Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 1996 11:54:28 +0100 Subject: Humor Yes, I've gotten letters. Is mockery the same as satire? I believe still that the entry did not belong on the SHAKSPEAR listserv. Bishop is irony, fun stuff. As for my sense of humor: "A guy walks into a bar...." aan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rinda Frye Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 96 14:01:03 EDT Subject: Contemporary Cycle Play I realize that religious matters are often a volatile topic, but the objection to the very funny review of a contemporary cycle play seems a bit thin-skinned to me. I took the reviewer's point of humor to be the contradictions and anachronisms within the conventions of the production: e.g., the bouffant hair on, as I recall, Potiphar's wife, and the general amateurish style of acting, writing, and production values. What was of particular interest to me, and I should think to people on this list, was the comparison of this production with how the original medieval cycles may have looked and sounded--and this was apparent not because we laughed at the faith of those in attendance but because we marvelled that despite these laughable production values, the audience enjoyed the production enormously because they saw it through the eyes of the faithful. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 1996 22:28:26 -0400 Subject: More on Contemporary Cycles Mine was one of the submissions lost, and given the turn of discussion, I've decided to resubmit it. Oh my! Recently a former student e-mailed me with some questions he had about the Platonic concept of aesthetics being an extension of ethics, and someone else's refutation of that, and so Tom's hysterical post actually raised some interesting questions for me. I told Alex [my student] that as far as I was concerned, that an aesthetic object that deliberately existed only within a single, specific ethical framework and did not attempt to look beyond it, was not art. [Paradoxically, I suggested that a piece also had to admit of an ethical universe before I would accept it... but enough about that...] Is this then why we laugh at the Rev. Angeley's work? Tom didn't tell us, but I'm sure that neither Jacob nor Joseph suffered from any inner conflicts; like Angeley himself, they were on the right track and they knew it. Not the stuff of good drama. On the flip side, I'm sure most of the audience members, as they got back onto their church buses, were rapturous about the amazing thing they had just seen. It had confirmed their ethos in a fairly dazzling way. Is this a Stoppardian situation? Is it possible for J&J to be caviar for the general, and royal nonesuch to us? On the other flip side, is it in fact possible to charge a community theatre director with elitism because he smugly assumes that his production of Winter's Tale represents, with no contest, a higher artistic achievement than J&J? What is the balance of ethics and aesthetics? Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre http://shenandoah.peachnet.edu/~dlyles/nctc/nctc.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 10:48:32 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0695 Re: Old Criticism; State of Profession; Alternate Sh 2 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0695. Wednesday, 25 September 1996. (1) From: David M Richman Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 1996 11:58:30 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0690 Re: Old Criticism (2) From: Jeff Myers Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 1996 17:15:27 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0665 Re: The State of the Profession (3) From: Naomi Liebler Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 96 13:41:00 EST Subj: RE: SHK 7.0693 SHAKSPER Ether Demon Alert (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 1996 11:58:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0690 Re: Old Criticism Just two additions to Tom Bishop's fine list. Una Ellis-Fermor, especially in *Shakespeare the Dramatist* papers published posthumously in, I believe,the early 'sixties, remains enormously useful to me. Her premise that drama is a revelation of thought and character through action remains as useful a starting point for a discussion or even a course as I know. Her wide-ranging analysis of "action" is as useful as any I have encountered since. She usefully distinguishes the "dramatic mode"from other forms of expression. Granville-Barker's prefaces are still enormously useful to anyone engaged in production. He is a director one can argue with and learn from. He's also, after half a century, wise and practical on the implications for production of the multiple early texts. (Base a production of Lear on the Folio, he advises, but incorporates a few bits--especially the mock trial--from the Quarto.) After all the sound and fury on Q and F Lear, this remains sound advice. David Richman University of New Hampshire (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 1996 17:15:27 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0665 Re: The State of the Profession If there was a golden age of hiring, it was well before my time (1984 Ph.D.). One can say, however, that this iron age of ours is becoming progressively rustier. When I was on the market, 200-500 applicants per position was not rare. For our last hire, over which I presided as chair, we had over 700 applicants. I was amazed at the accomplishments of at least half of them. One graduate-student applicant with a forthcoming publication in PMLA didn't even get an interview with us. With this many applicants, one can be very picky. I don't know that there is a formula for success. Luck clearly has something to do with it. On the other hand, I wonder if this admittedly bleak situation calls for the elimination of Ph.D. programs at non-elite institutions. I teach at a small undergraduate college, and while we have a few graduates with the motivation and talent to be successful at any of the elite schools, a number of our graduates choose graduate programs at less elite institutions not to prepare for college- or university-level teaching, but becase a few more years reading and writing about literature seems more rewarding than entering a job market that is bleak for almost any B.A., no matter what the major. I don't want to deny this option to these young people, especially when the alternative might be waitressing or working in a shopping mall. These students are far from "unsuspecting." And a small percentage (admittedly, very small) will get to teach with us, and the rest will probably not damage their careers in other fields by having a Ph.D. Now, is any of this worth what Robert Appelbaum calls "a terrible oversupply of resentment"? I don't know. As the son of a working-class father who dropped out of high school to join the Marines, I can tell you that it is also possible to resent not being allowed or encouraged to strive for educational goals. I guess I can at least see a defense for Bill Godshalk fighting for his graduate program other than self-interest. In fact, our self-interest might be better served by creating fewer potential competitors. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Liebler Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 96 13:41:00 EST Subject: RE: SHK 7.0693 SHAKSPER Ether Demon Alert One Mo' Time (as this was evidently one of the ether-demonized submissions): SHAKSPERians will be happy to know about the recent publication of _Alternative Shakespeares 2_, edited and introduced by fellow list-ener Terry Hawkes, and just out from Routledge. The volume contains essays (all new, commissioned for this volume) by Steven Mullaney, Catherine Belsey, Margreta de Grazia, Bruce Smith, Alan SInfield, Keir Elam, Ania Loomba, Dympna Callaghan, Philip Armstrong, and an Afterword by John Drakakis. Hawkes's intro is itself worth the price of the book, and then you get all those other essays with it. Kind of like Tom Berger's Malone Society deal, except this 1 is 11-4-1. Happy reading. Naomi Liebler ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 15:12:10 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0696 Re: Applause Facsimile *All's Well* Production Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0696. Wednesday, 25 September 1996. (1) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 1996 11:03:55 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0688 Q: Applause Facsimile (2) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 1996 11:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0689 Productions: *All's Well* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 1996 11:03:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0688 Q: Applause Facsimile Apparently, it was in violation because it used Hinman's line numbering system. It seems like a stretch to me, but Norton could afford a bigger legal battle than Applause, so it hardly matters. Cheers, Sean. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 1996 11:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0689 Productions: *All's Well* Hi. I found David's description of *All's Well* really interesting, as his posts tend to be. There is, however, a different reading available, in which Bertram is rebelling against getting virtually raped by someone who's able to demand his hand without anything like his permission. Rejecting the countess, a co-conspirator in this assault, as well as the whole of "female" civility for a strictly male world is only a logical response. Of course, what happens to Bertram is only a gender-reversal of what happens to any number of female characters. Kate in *Taming* comes to mind. This can allow us to sympathy with him, a victim like those we tend to lionize. Cheers, Sean. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 15:14:53 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0697 David Ball Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0697. Wednesday, 25 September 1996. From: Edna Z. Boris <104757.652@CompuServe.COM> Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 96 13:23:26 EDT Subject: David Ball Does anyone have a snail mail or e-mail address for David Ball, author of BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS, A TECHNICAL MANUAL FOR READING PLAYS (1983)? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 06:21:55 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0698 Re: State of the Profession Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0698. Thursday, 26 September 1996. (1) From: Thomas Ruddick Date: Wednesday, 25 Sep 96 13:20:50 EST Subj: re: SHK 7.0695 re...re....re.....the state of the profession (2) From: Dan Pigg Date: Wednesday, 25 Sep 1996 11:40:58 -600 (CDT) Subj: Re: State of Profession (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Ruddick Date: Wednesday, 25 Sep 96 13:20:50 EST Subject: re: SHK 7.0695 re...re....re.....the state of the profession Jeff Myers notes that the intrinsic worth and joy of education is itself an end, and he notes that this affords some defense (beyond that of self- interest) to efforts to save Bill Godschalk and his colleagues at the doomed doctoral program of the University of Cincinnati. Working as I do at an Ohio community college, and formerly employed at U.C., I confess to a bit of sangenfreude as I saw the state board of regents choose to aim their axes at doctoral programs rather than A.A.S. degrees. However, beyond my self-interest [which I have every bit as much of as Bill, and which I respect him for recognizing] there are other issues unmentioned here. If educational monies are tight, where should the cuts be made? At the earlier levels where we increase the likelihood that some will grow up utterly illiterate, or at the highest levels where the alternative to a few more years of reading and writing about literature might be (as Myers puts it) an honest job at Wal-Mart? Again and again I try to puzzle through the problems of funding for education, and I come back to the conclusion that either we as educators don't understand our own problems or we are unable to communicate the truth about them effectively--and in either case that makes us (collectively, not individually of course) into bad educators. Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems to me that there's plenty of money being spent on education in this country. The difference between now and 1960 is that then, funding went directly to the schools; now, it is filtered through dozens of grant programs and titles and student-aid programs. This process means that about half of the dollars spent for education wind up going to banks and bureaucrats. Meanwhile, the schools must employ dozens of extra clerical and administrative personnel to apply, comply, administer, and help students with all of the fragmented funding programs. My conclusion: if we as educators go on a public information campaign to promote the election of legislators who will go back to a simple system of direct funding, then many of our money problems will go away. I fear it may be too late for the current generation of scholars to do this effectively. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Pigg Date: Wednesday, 25 Sep 1996 11:40:58 -600 (CDT) Subject: Re: State of Profession The discussion on the state of the profession has been interesting to me, perhaps because as a relatively new Assoc. Prof, I still hold on to the illusion of being able to move on. That was not, however, the point that I wanted to make. My dept. has some members from so-called top flight institutions and a number from less elite, but nonetheless strong programs. Departments vary, and some people who have been educated with the notions that they will teach courses like "Drama, Plague, and Cross-gendering in the Theatre of Shakespeare's Day" are probably going to face the reality that in many universities around America the course will be an undergraduate course merely entitled "Shakespeare" offered once every year or perhaps once every two years. (My statement of course title is not intended to suggest that I disapprove of critical approaches in classroom instruction. My students have to critique four articles from a variety of critical perspectives, including the growing areas of gender studies.) My dept. teaches Shakespeare every fall semester with courses in 16th c. Brit. lit and 17th c. Brit lit. offered in alternating years. I don't think undergraduate only instituitions are radically different from what I have described. My job could hardly be called luxuriant. I teach two First-year comp courses each semester, usually a soph. survey of British lit (usually the first segment to 1800), and an upper-division course in some area of medieval or Renaissance literature. Given the load that is characteristic at my institution, I would wonder if a person whose sights are only the elite would function in such a "china shop." I for one think that many grad programs in English are often leading candidates into false assumptions about jobs. There are many kinds of institutions, and a broad range of PhD institutions prepare candidates for jobs for that variety. Many people already know that the most elite institutions do not necessarily produce the best teachers, and while almost all institutions require some scholarly activity to energize classroom teaching, excellent performance in the classroom setting is becoming more important in most places. And it is sometimes the case that individuals educated primarily at elite institutions do not mesh with the culturally diverse world of public institutions, but I realize this statement is a generalization. Dan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 06:31:31 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0699 Re: Mysteries Tapes; Old Criticism; Contemporary Cycles Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0699. Thursday, 26 September 1996. (1) From: Ron Moyer Date: Wednesday, 25 Sep 1996 12:01:08 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Mysteries Tapes (2) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 25 Sep 1996 19:26:57 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Books from "Prehistory" (3) From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 25 Sep 1996 16:04:17 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0694 More on Contemporary Cycles (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Moyer Date: Wednesday, 25 Sep 1996 12:01:08 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Mysteries Tapes To David Richman: The videotapes of _The Mysteries_ are available from Films for the Humanities (1-800-257-5126). The three parts--_The Nativity_ (#ALH4040), _The Passion_ (#ALH4041), and _Doomsday_ (#ALH4042)--cast $129 each or $365 when all three are purchased. Splendid work, decently presented on video, but the stage production was most extraordinarily moving--and not solely to devout Christians. Much religious drama (such as outdoor passion plays) speak forcefully to the devout, but leave others cold. The combination of a story deeply imbedded in our culture with the Bryden/National company's high level of craft and aesthetic allowed the production to be enjoyed on many levels. --Ron Moyer, Theatre, University of South Dakota (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 25 Sep 1996 19:26:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Books from "Prehistory" Aside from Granville-Barker's Prefaces (which are now back in print, portable paperback-size, praise be), I would like to add John Masefield's little book, "William Shakespeare", written when he was quite young. He manages to find the essence of the plays in his short articles on each one -- his analysis of Hamlet is as wonderful as it is brief. It is also interesting in that he includes certain plays of questionable authorship, a worthy reminder that we have had perpetual debates on what really belongs in the Canon. Masefield's book, unfortunately, is out of print so far as I know. Andy White Urbana, IL (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 25 Sep 1996 16:04:17 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0694 More on Contemporary Cycles I enjoyed the review of the church night out, although I did feel a little shame too. Look, most of these medieval cycles are pretty awful really, and ought indeed to be reserved, as has been well pointed out, for the medieval faithful; this performance sounds as if it was also reserved for the tasteless. The tasteless faithful are legion, as we surely know. There are tasteless faithful bardies who go to the Histories, Comedies and Tragedies too, and they have little right to scoff at the Rigidly Righteous [Burns, I would remind my colleagues]. I feel that the reviewer felt no artistic conmpulsion to go. His impulse, it seems to me, was scholarly. Would he have preferred a bunch of professional graduate students serving mead to the crowd, dressed in hemp and smelling of civet, singing dreary roundelays and generally being arch? I am cetain he would not. I sense too that he may laugh at the weary, stale, flat and unprofitable bits of Gobbo, Lance, Feste and Fool when he is in the theatre, but I hope not. I would not like to hear too many of those knowing chuckles with which I am already over-familiar. Then there are those who go to the experimental Shakespeare, those professional avant-garde audiences who sit in quiescent acceptance of whatever is the theoretical/critical voguery. Oh dear....do I not like ANYthing? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 06:34:35 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0700 Two Questions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0700. Thursday, 26 September 1996. From: Belinda Johnston Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 13:00:46 +1000 (EST) Subject: Help! I know this is probably more of a 'Middleton' question, but I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me Gary Taylor's e-mail address. PS: Steven Berkoff's *Coriolanus* is about to open in Australia- has anyone out there seen it? Comments? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 13:20:00 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0701 Re: State of the Profession Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0701. Friday, 27 September 1996. (1) From: David Schalkwyk Date: Thursday, 26 Sep 1996 13:44:15 SAST-2 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0698 Re: State of the Profession (2) From: Norm Holland Date: Thursday, 26 Sep 96 08:29:11 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0698 Re: State of the Profession (3) From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 26 Sep 1996 12:06:53 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0695 Re: State of Profession (4) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Thursday, 26 Sep 1996 11:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Subj: The Profession (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Schalkwyk Date: Thursday, 26 Sep 1996 13:44:15 SAST-2 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0698 Re: State of the Profession I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned Stanley Fish in this discussion. From afar, where educational institutions and their relationship to public and private funds and to their communities are presumably different from those in North Anmerica, Fish's arguments have always seemed to be both spot-on and parochial. In other words, like all forms of institutional pragmatism, they make sense only in terms of an institutional or communal framework which they of necessity must take for granted. Richard Rorty once said to me in Pretoria that the kind of pragamtism that he was espousing "could probably work only in a free, democratic, equal society like the USA, umm, maybe California, umm, maybe Marin County." That was remarkably honest. Are the problems now being experienced with in the profession not precisely a sign that the Fishian concept of professionalism is no longer viable, if ever it was? And that there are material and ideological reasons why the Rortian ideal of conversation can no longer exist in even Marin County? (Have I got the spelling of this right? I've only ever heard it, never seen it written.) David Schalkwyk University of Cape Town (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Thursday, 26 Sep 96 08:29:11 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0698 Re: State of the Profession Re Tom Ruddick's statement, "it seems to me that there's plenty of money being spent on education in this country"-- Nationwide statistic: the U.S. spends seven times as much on a prisoner in prison than a schoolchild in school. May a psychological critic suggest that this reveals something about our values, that we prize punishment and despise nurture? --Best, Norm (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 26 Sep 1996 12:06:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0695 Re: State of Profession I have a lot of sympathy for Jeff Myer's statements. People go on to grad school for many reasons, not all apparent even to the student. In my case, being the first in my family to go to college at all, just being an undergraduate was a means of escape from a life I knew I did not want. But what then? As a humanities major, I had learned to ask questions, but that wasn't going to get me a job. Nine post-undergrad years as an orderly and secretary and other mind-numbing jobs drove me to grad school with the hope of teaching, but left me (1984) seemingly no better: overeducated and once again a Kelly boy. But during the five, ever more abstract, years in grad school, I did learn what turned out to be practical, transferrable skills: how to write concisely, how to think analytically, how to negotiate my way through large organizations, and to take risks I would not have dared before. It took me several more years of scrambling before I began to get a foothold, but now I'm in a job I could not have planned for, and I even get to teach occasionally. Did I need a state-school's Ph.D. program to help me grow up and become productive? Maybe so. Does my experience justify the social expense of producing more Ph.D.'s than there are assistant professorships? Or the individual cost of the student loans necessary to fund such a degree (a burden I only recently paid off)? Probably not. But my experience has left me with the belief that it is still possible to see even graduate education as an end in itself, not just as a union card to a secure job. Jim Schaefer (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Thursday, 26 Sep 1996 11:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Profession Discussions of the state of the profession seem to me to be missing a few basic points. (1) There has been a significant net _decrease_ of federal and state funding for higher education over the past 5 years, at all levels, and in virtually all areas, except for the biological sciences and perhaps the computer sciences; the problem is not simply a matter of shifted forms of aid. (2) Mathematically, the more people who receive Ph.Ds every year, the more people who are not going to get jobs doing what their Ph.Ds have trained them to do. The effect therefore of continuing Ph.D programs at the current rate is not a democratization of education, a reaching out to the needy; the effect is the production of a surplus of Ph.D.s, a surplus of false hopes, and a surplus of ruined lives. (3) There is no necessary correlation between the joy of education, or the joy of continuing education, and the doctoral degree. The joy of education may be more valuable as a personal and social good than the credentialing process entailed by the doctoral degree; but as long as higher education is organized as it is, the doctoral degree will be valued precisely as a professional credential, and institutions will continue to try to hire and to train Ph.D.s precisely as they are hiring and training them today -- as professionals, with expertise in highly specialized and complex fields. _Pace_ a recent article on this issue in the New York Times Magazine, and the implications of some of the arguments that have appeared on this list, efforts to make the doctoral degree into something less than the most rigorous professional training -- efforts to make into a venue where people can pursue the joy of education for its own sake -- can only have the effect of dumbing down the degree, and the profession along with it. (4) It is not elitist to propose that fewer universities try to produce fewer PH.Ds over the next few years. Nor is it elitist to suggest that only those institutions which are best equipped to produce Ph.D.s should be the ones to continue doing so. (5) Clearly, there is a great deal of uncertainty and ambivalence about teachers of literature ought to do, especially among teachers of literature, and one of the sources of that uncertainty and ambivalence stems directly from the professionalization of the study of literature. Is it not conceivable, though, that professionally staffed and gifted institutions like (say) Prof. Godschalk's school could do more for the public, for people interested in literature, on a sub-professional level? That is, is it not conceivable that some venues of higher education could be organized to do something besides striving to reduplicate themselves as institutions? We hear a lot about the ailing state of the profession, but it's been a long time since we've heard much about open universities -- even though what most of us really believe in is openness, the free exchange of ideas, the free movement of literacy through all levels of society, the free and democratic development of cultural production and critical reflection. But it's been a long time since we've heard about professionals in literature and other disciplines banding together to fight back, to fight back about the cutting in funding, to fight back against the dismantling of higher education, to fight back against the ideology of narrow vocationalism. What we've heard rather is a collective _sauve qui peut_. Well, it just may be that demographic pressures will finally lead us out of this "crisis" without our having done anything on our own initiative except to have played the game of sauve qui peut. It may be that these pressures will have an effect very soon. And certainly a number of institutions have been able to hold on to what is valuable about them and even to grow during these difficult past few years. Moreover, there are still many successes in higher education: some schools have strengthened themselves as tradition-based institutions, some schools have developed successful innovations in inter-disciplinary and global learning, and some schools -- maybe most schools -- have continued to be just plain good at what they do, modifying their approaches slowly but continuously. But we should make no mistake about what has been involved on a personal level: an increasing number of ruined lives, coupled with the increasing exploitation of adjuncts and grad students holding on to the slimmest of hopes that their lives are not ruined _yet._ Meanwhile, Professor Godschalk's main question has gone entirely unanswered: What is it that we think students ought to learn today? How do we think we ought to go organizing ourselves in order to teach it? Robert Appelbaum ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 13:33:58 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0702 Re: Mysteries; Old Criticism; Berkoff; Ball Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0702. Friday, 27 September 1996. (1) From: Charles Edelman Date: Thursday, 26 Sep 1996 20:29:09 +8/00 Subj: Mysteries Tapes (2) From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Friday, 27 Sep 1996 05:19:02 -0400 Subj: Old Criticism (3) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 26 Sep 96 09:40:42 CST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0700 Berkoff's Coriolanus (4) From: Ed Pixley Date: Thursday, 26 Sep 1996 11:17:18 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0697 David Ball (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Edelman Date: Thursday, 26 Sep 1996 20:29:09 +8/00 Subject: Mysteries Tapes Is anyone able to list a BRITISH supplier for the National's 3 videos of _The Mysteries_? Many thanks, Charles Edelman Edith Cowan Universtiy, Australia (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Friday, 27 Sep 1996 05:19:02 -0400 Subject: Old Criticism Whence all this enthusiasm for Granville-Barker? His Prefaces offer little more than the sort of hell-for-leather pursuit of psychological realism that we ought to have out-grown by now. Bradley and water if you ask me. T. Hawkes (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 26 Sep 96 09:40:42 CST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0700 Berkoff's Coriolanus Belinda Johnson asked: >PS: Steven Berkoff's *Coriolanus* is about to open in Australia- has anyone >out there seen it? Comments? I didn't see either of Berkoff's productions (he directed a New York production with Christopher Walken in the title role, and a German language production in Germany--Munich, I believe), but I did read his book about the latter, _Coriolanus in Deutschland_ and found it quite interesting, both in terms of his analysis and direction of the play and his personal reflections. I also enjoyed his _I Am Hamlet_ about a production of _Hamlet_ in which he starred (and may have also directed) that toured Europe a number of years back. I'd be interested in others' comments about these or the Australian production. Chris Gordon (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pixley Date: Thursday, 26 Sep 1996 11:17:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0697 David Ball The last I knew, David was at Duke University in the theatre department, though when he wrote the book, he was, I believe, dramaturg at the Guthrie Theatre. Ed Pixley SUNY at Oneonta ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 13:39:22 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0703 Re: *All's Well*; Odds & Ends; Keaton's Dogberry Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0703. Friday, 27 September 1996. (1) From: David Skeele Date: Thursday, 26 Sep 1996 11:56:05 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0696 Re: *All's Well* Production; Odds & Ends (2) From: Susan Mather Date: Thursday, 26 Sep 1996 14:24:15 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0664 Re: Keaton's Dogberry (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Thursday, 26 Sep 1996 11:56:05 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0696 Re: *All's Well* Production; Odds & Ends I appreciated Sean's response concerning "All's Well," and I quite agree that his reading--in which Bertram's escape from the "near rape" of forced marriage is a logical, understandable response--is a valid reading. In fact, though it seems contradictory, such a reading informed my production as well. I felt that during the scene in which he is strongarmed by the King into accepting Helena, the audience's sympathies were fairly evenly divided between the two youngsters (in that Helena's desire to wed him by King's proclamation made "fairy-tale sense" and Bertram's desire to flee the situation made realistic sense). I did feel, however, that unless those sympathies were shifted more toward Helena by later in the play, the plot might run the risk of becoming tiresome, as most of it revolves around her machinations for snaring Bertram. And this shift was fairly easily accomplished, in that Bertram's later actions with Diana (such as making blatantly false declarations of love in order to seduce her) are somewhat less sympathetic. I chose to see this as the influence of a bad crowd (led by Parolles) from whom Bertram needed to be rescued, so that Helena's quest became a justifiable soul-saving mission. I rather like that Bertram/Kate comparison you made. I never thought about it quite that way, but I think it's very interesting that so much critical anger has been vented (with good cause, I believe) about the treatment of Kate, while very few tears are shed for a male plight that is, as you point out, markedly similar. If I could switch gears for a moment, I would like to throw in my vote for best "old Critic" (though he might not be "old" enough). I think that for sturdy critical insight and delightfully lucid, engaging prose, you can't beat C.L. Barber. One random query: Norman Myers spoke of a medieval theatre discussion group (called "Perform"?). Any one have the address handy? Thanks, David Skeele (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Thursday, 26 Sep 1996 14:24:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0664 Re: Keaton's Dogberry To reply to Milla--Michael Keaton was playing "Beetlejuice" in "Much Ado" -- But wait...I still thought it was great. Just watch one and then, the other. a perfectly enjoyable evening I can tell you.========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 08:21:30 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0704 Re: The State of the Profession Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0704. Sunday, 29 September 1996. (1) From: Tom Clayton Date: Friday, 27 Sep 1996 17:24:57 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0660 et al.: The State of the Profession (2) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Friday, 27 Sep 1996 22:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0701 Re: State of the Profession (3) From: Kezia Sproat Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 1996 01:12:13 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0701 Re: State of the Profession (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Friday, 27 Sep 1996 17:24:57 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0660 et al.: The State of the Profession I thought I had sent the following earlier, but it evidently didn't arrive. Since then, much has changed here, anyway. I leave intact what I wrote on the 16th. It now seems very likely that the University Faculty Alliance of the University of Minnesota will win the collective-bargaining election handily over the alternative of no action. If it does, we shall have rescued the University from virtual destruction by a Board of Regents that has increasingly demonstrated that it cannot buckle its distempered cause within the belt of rule. The earlier communication follows. I am sending this as information to any interested who are or might find themselves in the same rotten carcass of a butt before they know it. The "State of 'the Profession," whatever one considers that to be, is going to become increasingly contingent, I think. __________________________________________________________________________ Considerable diversity of interesting views in 7.0660, to which I would gladly put in my two-cents' worth; but we are beset at the moment here with the beginning of the fall quarter (as usual) and (as unusual) with an impending change to the semester system, which has to be designed this year and mostly this quarter; and, still more urgently, with attacks upon academic freedom and tenure by the University's Board of Regents, who on 10 October were scheduled to take action on a drastically revised tenure-code mostly written by out-of-state--Washington, D.C.--lawyers specializing in "downsizing" and corporate hierarchies, without consulting faculty members on anything. In response, members of the University Faculty Alliance, which formed early in the year because of inchoate efforts of the same kind, went to work in necessary earnest and on 13 September was able to file over 600 authorization cards with the State Bureau of Mediation Services, to effect a cease-and-desist order preventing further attempts by the Board of Regents to abridge if not abolish the faculty's academic freedom and security of tenure until a collective-bargaining election has been held. This is *not* a campus where trade unionism would ordinarily have been welcomed by a majority of faculty members, and union elections were lost here in the 1970s and again in the 1980s (partly by the entry of third-party spoilers into the contest). No doubt there will be numerous challenges of the cease-and-desist order. At the moment we are strong, but not so strong that we don't need a lot more signatures to be confident of winning the election; and in the meantime the Regents will be colluding as they did all summer. An otherwise admirable analysis of the problems of the University of Minnesota published in yesterday's Minneapolis *Star Tribune* was marred only by a deprecation of unions that many of us find doubtful: "There is evidence that in the few major institutions that have taken this [unionizing] route, teaching loads increase and the faculty are subject to more severe discipline, further detracting from the research mission." Much turns on what "evidence" and "major" are taken to mean. I for one don't believe this, partly because I know of at least one university where the faculty is very much better off in almost every way than it was before collective bargaining; but even if it were true it should have no bearing, necessarily, on unions organizing and bargaining *now*, except to serve as examples of arrangements not to make. Not to clog the SEC with more of this digressive discourse, I would be happy to have at my own e-mail address direct any experience-based or even second-hand advice (please say which it is!) on what to do and what not to do in setting up (for) collective bargaining. I can't promise much interactive response, but I would also be happy to send by return e-mail a copy of a brief analysis by chairs of 5 major faculty-governance committees with examples of the Regents' proposed revisions for those interested in seeing what the Procrusteses in charge of the "cutting edge" of academic "downsizing" are trying to do here in the name of flexibility. If they succeed, they will have created a precedent for a similar fate to come the way of other vulnerable faculties and institutions. This barbarously draconian cure is surely worse than the disease, since it will seriously if not irreparably damage the institution as well as maim if not enslave the faculty; but it is the fashionable mode of institutional "reengineering," at present, and if it is not stopped here, it will not stop here. It probably won't, anyway, but forewarned is forearmed. Best wishes, Tom (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Friday, 27 Sep 1996 22:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0701 Re: State of the Profession Hi, I agree with the majority of Mr. Appelbaum's points on the debate so far, but I would have to disagree with his assumption that having a Ph.D. in a field in which one is not employable leads to a "ruined life." I don't think my father intended to have his current job when he was a seminarian, and I don't think my mother anticipated her future so precisely when she was in university, either. I just don't get this assumption that spiritual fulfillment only comes from working within a field to which one has been highly trained. I also agree that "(3) There is no necessary correlation between the joy of education, or the joy of continuing education, and the doctoral degree." On the other hand, there isn't an inverse correlation, either. Amateur athletes also compete against high standards which, if not exactly objective, are more than set by themselves. A large number of people find competing against fixed challenges particularly fulfilling. I don't see why a doctoral programme can't serve as such a challenge. I may not get a job in the teaching profession when I'm through, though I'll certainly try; there are, nevertheless, an infinite range of career options for which my Ph.D., if not exactly preparing me, nevertheless provided valuable skills. Schweitzer's degree in theology did not prepare him to be a medical doctor, or a Bach scholar, for that matter. Cheers, Sean. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kezia Sproat Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 1996 01:12:13 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0701 Re: State of the Profession The structure of Godshalk's question, "What is it we think students should know today? and How should we organize ourselves to teach them?" might be taken to imply a fill-the-empty-vessel pedagogy that was out of fashion, thankfully, when my children entered elementary school 21 years ago as I searched in vain for a teaching job. I suspect neither Godshalk nor Applebaum, whose phrase "ruined lives" gets the patronizing prize, intended those implications, but we should perhaps scrutinize agency. Who determines what's learned, if not the student, who chooses from all the available monkey models, and, with luck, successfully guesses and experiments beyond those models? Did E.K.Chambers teach? The best any academic insider can do is model scholarly behavior, which includes being able to look in more directions than down the nose. There's good life outside--21 years after PhD I'm still intellectually free, interested in Shakespeare and expansion of understanding of his texts, open to these texts, doing such an exciting investigation in my spare time that (having been burned long ago) I ain't talkin' about it in no detail whatsomever. I've earned my living by learning and writing, learning, writing, recently on the history of the Internet. Our very medium on SHAKSPER runs and sings, as we use it, "You too are in a Renaissance! This is how Shakespeare felt about the Indies!" Our times are thrilling and challenging, but tons of work needs doing, mostly in communication, helping characters around the planet as diverse as Cleopatra, Dogberry, Hamlet, Malvolio, Shylock, Brutus, and the King of Navarre understand and keep from killing one another. Shakespeare scholars are by definition well equipped to do such work. Which part of this work will I do now? is the question I ask myself every day and commend to younger people who find themselves outside the ivy walls. (Bleah ivy, in fact the worst thing for walls.) Create your own damn jobs and have fun! Forget, in case you ever thought of it, academic pecking orders and the kissing up of arrogant deans! Thank the Almighty you're not in much danger of becoming university presidents, lackeys of developers and legislators! Enjoy being alive! Lose the self-pity! If you lose your job, good scholar Godshalk, come up to Chillicothe! We're seriously thinking of starting a Shakespeare Festival there, emboldened by 25 successful years with outdoor drama [Tecumseh!], the oldest continuously operating movie house in the world [aptly named the Majestic], and Maurice Morgann's 1777 prediction of Shakespeare on the Scioto River [Essay on the Character of Sir John Falstaff]. Morgann, a London land agent for whom the plains of the Sciota were the ends of the then-known earth, was furious at Voltaire for calling Shakespeare a barbarian and wrote something like, "When Voltaire's language is forgotten, the Appalachian mountains, the banks of the Ohio, and the plains of the Sciota shall resound with the accents of this barbarian." I know the chill of fear that one's own children will be hungry, so my fellow never-to-be-employed-academically Shakespeareans have my sincere sympathy. Also for them: a standing offer of nine bean rows at Highbank Farm Peace Education Center in Chillicothe, and this suggestion: Wherever you are, nearby is someone who knows less about one of the great enduring pleasures of life than you do. Share your knowledge and joy. Shakespeare Festivals --or, to begin, simply Shakespeare reading circles, in every county, on every corner of our cities is what the hell this country, and possibly the whole world, needs. Certainly academe needs some of the fresh air better general knowledge of the texts might generate, don't we all agree to that? Has anyone else on this list ever heard of Myles Horton? One of the most influential educators of the last two centuries, Horton started the Highlander School in Tennessee, where ML King and Rosa Parks were trained, before the bus boycott in Montgomery. His philosophy was as follows: If you have 10 or 15 people who share the same problem and want to solve it, put them together someplace and let them talk and wash dishes together for 10 days, and they will find a way to solve that problem, no matter how apparently insurmountable. Kezia Sproat ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 08:28:04 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0795 1997 ATHE Conference; Barker vs. Bradley Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0705. Sunday, 29 September 1996. (1) From: Sam Marinov Date: Friday, 27 Sep 96 20:28:03 UT Subj: SHK 7.0013 :1997 ATHE Conference (2) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 28 Sep 1996 16:37:55 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Barker vs. Bradley (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Marinov Date: Friday, 27 Sep 96 20:28:03 UT Subject: SHK 7.0013 :1997 ATHE Conference I've been asked to organize a session on performances of Shakespeare at the 1997 ATHE in Chicago. If anybody is interested, please let me know. Sam Marinov Atlanta (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 28 Sep 1996 16:37:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Barker vs. Bradley While it may, in the long run, come down to matters of personal taste, The reason why Granville Barker deserves his still-great influence in the theatre is that he, unlike Bradley and other 19th century relics (if you can be gratuitous, so can I), addressed Shakespeare's works in their original context. He discussed the bare thrust stage, the informal workshop atmosphere that produced the plays. He also established the importance of taking every line, every character seriously. His many insights into works like Hamlet and Lear come not from the establishment of some overarching theory prior to discussion of the text; quite the opposite. He discussed the play using the text as the sole authority, intentionally diminishing even his own role as theorist and critic. As Pennington points out, in the long run his interpretations of character seem archaic, locked into the Edwardian era from which his work first emerged. But his practical understanding of stagecraft as an actor/playwright/producer, his insistence on the infallibility of the text (his observations on 'bad quartos' are quite convincing to me), and especially his efforts to reintroduce the thrust stage which was the source of all the Bard's works, lead me to conclude that his influence is not a fluke at all, but one that is well deserved. Again, I am delighted to see that the man Sir John Gielgud still raves about to this day is once again in print for a new generation's discovery. Andy White Urbana, Illinois ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 19:03:32 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0706 Re: Old Criticism (Barker vs. Bradley) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0706. Monday, 30 September 1996. (1) From: Paul Hawkins Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 1996 10:01:37 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Old Criticism (2) From: Harry Hill Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 1996 11:08:00 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Old Harley Granville-Barker (3) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 96 17:20:43 BST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0795 Barker vs. Bradley (4) From: David M Richman Date: Monday, 30 Sep 1996 13:51:19 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0702 Re: Old Criticism (5) From: Ed Pechter Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 1996 14:08:44 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0795 Barker vs. Bradley (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 1996 10:01:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Old Criticism Thanks to Andrew Walker White for pointing out how Granville-Barker's brilliant reflections on all aspects of the theatrical conception of the plays make him much more than "Bradley and water." But those whose thinking on the psychological or other inferences that the plays encourage us to make begins and ends with L.C. Knights would do well to re-read A.D. Nuttall's brief discussion of "How many children had Lady Macbeth?" in *The New Mimesis*: "It is strange that so coarse a piece of reasoning should have passed for a great stroke of destructive theory. . . . Knights's ill-made shaft misses both Shakespeare and Bradley [and doubtless Granville-Barker] and falls on stony ground. But the stony ground, it must be confessed, received it with joy" (82-83). I'm sure SHAKSPERians will continue to profit from Granville-Barker's *Prefaces* and from A.C. Bradley's *Shakespearean Tragedy,* which should certainly join the list (unless I've missed someone's recommendation of it) of earlier twentieth century criticism worth our continued attention. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 1996 11:08:00 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Old Harley Granville-Barker One wonders if perhaps supremely intelligent and productive Terenve Hawkes lives in Brave New World, where the Controllers exercise their powers with "Alexandria....whisk! Rome.....whisk! Jesus Christ....whisk! Granville-Barker...whisk!" in a thorough cleansing of the past. As Goethe observed, in a language where the statement makes a richer sense, `If an idea is wanting, a word can always be found to take its place.' He also said, of course, that "Wir sind alle Pilger auf der Erde" [we're all pilgrims on the earth], which the cheap of mind may reduce at will to "Everyone's entitled to their opinion". Harry Hill (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 96 17:20:43 BST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0795 Barker vs. Bradley Andrew Walker White says of Granville-Barker >He discussed the bare thrust stage, the informal workshop atmosphere that >produced the plays. Yes he did, but without properly evaluating the evidence for either. One might want to consider the ubiquity of touring and court performances, which present an obstacle to both. The use of city inns and private indoor playhouses also needs to be added to GB's simple amphitheatre model. >his practical understanding of stagecraft as an actor/playwright/producer, his >insistence on the infallibility of the text (his observations on 'bad quartos' >are quite convincing to me), and especially his efforts to reintroduce the >thrust stage which was the source of all the Bard's works, lead me to conclude >that his influence is not a fluke at all, but one that is well deserved. That's a big claim for the influence of the thrust stage. Unwarranted confidence in Granville-Barker's "practical understanding of stagecraft" led to his errors being long overlooked; eg his insistence on the absence of act intervals in performance. Gabriel Egan (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Monday, 30 Sep 1996 13:51:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0702 Re: Old Criticism I'm not surprised that poor old Granville-Barker comes in for some disparageent. The giants of our day, like the old gods,sometimes feast on their forbears. If you have to stage the thing, G.B. can be helpful. His is certainly not the last word, but it is a helpful word. David Richman (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pechter Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 1996 14:08:44 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0795 Barker vs. Bradley I too remember getting a lot of useful ideas out of Granville- Barker. But why set up G-B's virtues against Bradley's defects? The idea that Bradley wasn't interested in the original production conditions of Shakespeare is a bum rap, I think. In "Shakespeare's Theater and Audience," Bradley spoke admiringly of Poel and revealed up to date knowledge about the Renaissance public theater as building and social and cultural institution. What's more, his speculations sound in many ways up to our date as well--his accommodating Shakespeare not unlike Stephen Greenblatt's, his crossover audiences not unlike Andrew Gurr's. Why do we keep reproducing an oversimplified image of Bradley as antitheatrical and antihistorical? What's at stake? Is it ritual scapegoating? ressentiment? embarrassment at our own residual Victorianism? some want of intellect? a rather tough worm in our little inside? Tell me, he (or she) that knows. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 19:16:14 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0707 Re: The State of the Profession Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0707. Monday, 30 September 1996. (1) From: Jeff Myers Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 1996 14:41:49 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0698 Re: State of the Profession (2) From: Greg Grainger Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 1996 11:03:08 -0400 (EDT) Subj: The State of the Profession (3) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 96 20:21:42 BST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0704 Re: The State of the Profession (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 1996 20:05:26 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0704 Re: The State of the Profession (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 1996 14:41:49 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0698 Re: State of the Profession >If educational monies are tight, where should the cuts be made? At the earlier >levels where we increase the likelihood that some will grow up utterly >illiterate, or at the highest levels where the alternative to a few more years >of reading and writing about literature might be (as Myers puts it) an honest >job at Wal-Mart? Much virtue in "if." While Thomas Ruddick makes some interesting points, it seems to me a bit too accepting of currently standard political ideology to frame the question in this way. Why must we view graduate programs as existing at the expense of kids in grossly inadequate elementary schools? Allowing the debate to be framed in these terms can only hurt everyone in education. If, indeed, the choice were between graduate programs in English and a functioning public school system, all of us, I hope, would choose the latter. But I've never been given that choice, and I don't expect that Bill Clinton, Bob Dole or any other politician will offer it very soon. As for "an honest job at Wal-Mart," what does that mean? Have we come to accept honest work to mean only gross exploitation at low wages in terrible working conditions? I'm truly afraid such might be the case. Much of the resentment against tenure, e.g., seems to come from envy at the honest work we can do. As an administrator at Goucher recently put it, it's not fair to have faculty on administrative committees because we can say what we want. The desired redress, however, seems not to make administrators free, but to take away our freedom. Considering what's happening at U of Minn, perhaps we'll all soon find ourselves at honest Wal-Mart-type jobs. Then, things will get interesting. Jeff Myers (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Greg Grainger Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 1996 11:03:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The State of the Profession On the issue of whether or not a PhD is a worthwhile objective when the job market is so bad: From an article in the June, 1924, issue of _The Teacher's Magazine_: Now education is a peculiar process. You aim at one thing and you hit another. You set out to look for ultimate truth and you don't find it; but incidentally you have acquired a cultivated mind. You pursue studies that you think will be of use in your business. They are not. But by the time you are done with them you are a better man for your business or for any other business. - Stephen Leacock From R. W. Dale's 'Nine Lectures on Preaching', 1893: It is the very intention of a university course to enable a man to read - not what he likes, but what he does not like; to develop - not those intellectual muscles which are already healthy and vigorous, but those which are so weak that the slightest strain upon them is unwelcome while it lasts and leaves pain behind. Thoughout life it is a wise practice to have always on hand two very different kinds of intellectual work - work which is a pleasure to us, for in that direction probably our true strength lies; and work which is a trouble to us, for by _that_ our intellectual defects will probably be modified and corrected. Be thankful for the studies which are a drudgery to you; never evade them, or to use a fitter word, never 'scamp' them. They will give you what will be one of the chief elements of your power by-and-by, a despotic control over your intellectual faculties, which will enable you to compel them to do their work, and to do it thoroughly, when they are most disposed to rebel. Or, as Jane Fonda said, 'No pain, no gain.' Idealistic? Yes. Unworthy on that account? I don't think so. My $0.02. Best, Greg. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 96 20:21:42 BST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0704 Re: The State of the Profession I suspect we all at times overstate the value of our subject, whatever it is. In academia this is understandable as the students are often only too willing to aid and abet us in this. But Kezia Sproat's recent posting from outside academia--indeed asserting the value of being outside--makes the grandest claim of all: Shakespeare saves the world! I risk taking seriously what was intended as a joke, but here goes... >Our times are thrilling and challenging, but tons of work needs doing, >mostly in communication, helping characters around the planet as diverse as >Cleopatra, Dogberry, Hamlet, Malvolio, Shylock, Brutus, and the King of Navarre >understand and keep from killing one another. Shakespeare scholars are by >definition well equipped to do such work. This is the highly pernicious idea that Shakespeare captures the essence of every type of human character and that in his plays one sees all the world. This claim falls apart upon inspection. How many non-aristocratic women are there in Shakespeare's plays? Exclude the prostitutes...Hmm. The idea that Shakespeare civilizes the savage beast, and that Shakespeare specialists therefore have a special role in the world, is the height of intellectual arrogance. A fundamental part of any teaching of Shakespeare today must be a critique of this cultural imperialism. >Shakespeare Festivals --or, to begin, simply >Shakespeare reading circles, in every county, on every corner of our cities is >what the hell this country, and possibly the whole world, needs. All around the globe the north and west consume the wealth of the south and east, and condemn the majority of the world's population to abject misery. The computer I'm typing this on was constructed by a slave-child manacled to a work-bench. Just exactly how is Shakespeare going to set him/her free? >If you have 10 or 15 >people who share the same problem and want to solve it, put them together >someplace and let them talk and wash dishes together for 10 days, and they will >find a way to solve that problem, no matter how apparently insurmountable. Ahh....hokey dokey. I'll get Netanyahu, you get Hanan Ashrawi. Let's thrash out this little misunderstanding about land and freedom. Then you get Ian Paisley and I'll bring Gerry Adams. We'll have them all over for coffee and the boys can do the dishes. Brilliant. Joe Hill found that washing dishes for 10 days was just the right way to get restaurant kitchens unionized, so I can see SOME value in Sproat's suggestion. Gabriel Egan (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 1996 20:05:26 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0704 Re: The State of the Profession Kezia Sproat, fellow Ohio Shakespeare Conferee, wrote: >The structure of Godshalk's question, "What is it we think students should know >today? and How should we organize ourselves to teach them?" might be taken to >imply a fill-the-empty-vessel pedagogy that was out of fashion, thankfully, >when my children entered elementary school 21 years ago . . . . My colleagues do seem to be thinking in this way, and they seem to think that our Ph.D. students need to be filled to overflowing with every theory propounded in the last thirty years. In our Revised New Structure, all Ph.D. seminars MUST be theory-driven, and for every course in Renaissance literature (drama, prose, and poetry) there are six "pure" theory seminars. My colleagues have made this revision because they think that the more theories a new Ph.D. knows, the better his chances of getting a job. I wonder if this is strictly, and I wonder what you all think. Yours,. Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 19:19:13 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0708 "Introductory Guide" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0708. Monday, 30 September 1996. From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 1996 09:53:44 -0800 Subject: "Introductory Guide" Dear Friends and Colleagues, One of my many hats is stage history, and as one of a few people at Berkeley doing stage history I've occasionally been asked to give "how to" talks. Over the years, I kept notes and, finally, wrote up an "Introductory Guide" that I gave to all interested colleagues. It received a warm reception from many people, who find it a useful resource. The purpose of the guide is *genuinely* introductory. I want to give people who do not know much about stage history an introduction without overloading them. I'm curious about what members of the SHAKSPER group might think about the guide, so I spent a few minutes this morning putting a hypertextual version on the World Wide Web. The URL is http://garnet.berkeley.edu/~claudius/berens.html. I am interested in any responses, including suggestions for additional material. Yours faithfully, Bradley Berens ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 19:21:36 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0709 Call for Submissions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0709. Monday, 30 September 1996. From: Malcolm Keithley Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 1996 18:34:00 -0700 Subject: Call for Submissions CD Cinema is now accepting submissions for "Shakespeare in His World," a CD-ROM scheduled for publication and distribution by Thynx Publishing. The title may be previewed at the following site: http://www.digifx.com/Shakespeare/ All subject categories are open for content submission. The developers may be contacted via the site, or by addressing questions to Malcolm Keithley (project director) @ . The www site will be further developed to serve as a companion to the CD-ROM. The www site will be under constant development and the CD will be updated every so often to keep abreast of technology advances. Regards, Malcolm Keithley ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 19:24:52 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0710 New Historicism at Ghent (Belgium) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0710. Monday, 30 September 1996. From: Ton Hoenselaars Date: Monday, 30 Sep 1996 16:58:53 -0600 (CST) Subject: New Historicism at Ghent (Belgium) C O N F E R E N C E Facing History. Recent developments in the study of the relationships between literature and history. Since the beginning of the 1980s we have been witnessing the steady rise of a number of new methods of historico-contextualist criticism. One of these is the new historicism, which originated in the work of a number of Anglo-American Renaissance-scholars and which since has found its way into the fields of Medieval Literature, Romanticism, Victorian studies and the study of 20th-century literature. In the wake of post-structuralist theories of representation, new historicists have found it difficult to hold on to traditional conceptions of the relationship between literature and history and have stressed the need to find new theoretical models that would highlight the dynamic, mutual dependency of text and context. One of these models is to be found in the work of the leading new historicist Stephen Greenblatt. In his work on Shakespeare he suggested that we understand the historical embeddedness of texts in terms of what he called "the circulation of social energy." This enables us to conceive of literary texts as both determined by and constitutive of historical reality. It is the purpose of this conference to introduce the work of such renowned critics as Stephen Greenblatt (University of Berkeley/California, USA) and Catherine Belsey (University of Cardiff, Wales) - both key-note speakers at our meeting - in the Belgian and Dutch academies. Also, the conference aims at confronting in a critical manner the new reading-method which these critics proposed with a number of urgent questions. Some of these will no doubt concern what our third key-note speaker, Frank Ankersmit (University of Groningen, the Netherlands), has termed "the chiastic relationship of literature and history." Other speakers include cultural and literary theorists, philosophers, Shakespeareans and historians, who will address equally important questions: what, if any, are the advantages of 'facing history' for the literary critic?; how should history be faced?; what, exactly, does it mean to do so? For further information please contact: Juergen Pieters, Vakgroep Nederlandse Literatuur en Algemene Literatuurwetenschap, Blandijnberg 2, B-9000 Gent. (e-mail: Jurgen.Pieters@rug.ac.be) Int/9/221.46.80. (home) Int/9/264.40.97 (work) Fax: Int/9/264.31.95! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 19:27:25 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0711 Re: PERFORM Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0711. Monday, 30 September 1996. From: Norman J. Myers Date: Monday, 30 Sep 1996 11:10:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: PERFORM In connection with a discussion about contemporary cycle plays which appeared a little while back, I mentioned that perhaps the report and discussions would be interesting to the medieval performance discussion list "Perform". Since then several people have asked me for information about this list, so I thought I'd post the subscribing information here on SHAKSPER: PERFORM / Medieval Performance To join PERFORM, send it the message "sub perform [your name]" to: Bitnet: Internet: To post a message to PERFORM, send it to: Bitnet: Internet: Hope this is helpful. It's the latest info I have, and it's how I got on the list. Norman Myers Bowling Green State U. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 19:29:35 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0712 Q: Lines per character Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0712. Monday, 30 September 1996. From: Norm Holland Date: Monday, 30 Sep 96 16:58:33 EDT Subject: Lines per character Can someone point me to a reference work that gives the number of lines spoken by each character? I'm particularly interested in the relative number of lines spoken by Falstaff and Hotspur in 1H4. Thanks, Norm Holland========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 14:56:51 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0713 Re: Lines per Character Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0713. Tuesday, 1 October 1996. (1) From: Bradley Stewart Berens Date: Monday, 30 Sep 1996 21:40:30 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0712 Q: Lines per character (2) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Monday, 30 Sep 1996 22:46:52 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0712 Q: Lines per character (3) From: Thomas Berger Date: Tuesday, 01 Oct 1996 07:58:25 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0712 Q: Lines per character (4) From: Norman J. Myers Date: Tuesday, 1 Oct 1996 09:57:12 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0712 Q: Lines per character (5) From: Tom Clayton Date: Tuesday, 1 Oct 1996 09:18:48 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0712 Q: Lines per character (6) From: Michael Friedman Date: Tuesday, 01 Oct 1996 10:34:23 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0712 Q: Lines per character (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley Stewart Berens Date: Monday, 30 Sep 1996 21:40:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0712 Q: Lines per character Dear Norm, According to the invaluable tables in the back of T.J. King's CASTING SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYS: LONDON ACTORS AND THEIR ROLES, 1590-1642 (Cambridge UP, 1992) Falstaff has a total of 542 lines Hotspur has a total of 538 lines Hal has a total of 514 lines King Henry has a total of 338 lines The tables also divvy up the lines by scene. Hope this helps! Best wishes, Bradley Berens (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Monday, 30 Sep 1996 22:46:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0712 Q: Lines per character Norman Holland should look in the Spevack concordance. At the beginning of the listings of words for each play, Spevack lists the total number of lines for each speaking part. Cheers, Sean. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Berger Date: Tuesday, 01 Oct 1996 07:58:25 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0712 Q: Lines per character There is an edition by a person (a man) named ROLFE, in New York, 1906, who has an appendix, or is it in the prefatory material, that lists the # of lines per character, per scene, the total, and the % of the lines that character has in the play. I think. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman J. Myers Date: Tuesday, 1 Oct 1996 09:57:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0712 Q: Lines per character I'm not sure it'll help at all, but you might try W. Halstead's mulit-volume SHAKESPEARE AS SPOKEN. Norman Myers (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Tuesday, 1 Oct 1996 09:18:48 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0712 Q: Lines per character Statistics of this kind are given in Marvin Spevack's *Complete and Systematic Concordance to the Works of Shakespeare* based on the *Riverside Shakespeare* and published in Germany by Olms, 9 vols., 1968-1980. Vol. 2 has the histories. In round numbers, Falstaff has 23%, Hotspur 18%, Prince Hal 18% a bit over Hotspur's. (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Tuesday, 01 Oct 1996 10:34:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0712 Q: Lines per character For Norm Holland, The Pelican Complete Works of Shakespeare has a chart somewhere in its introductory material that lists the top three characters per play in terms of the number of lines, and also gives the exact counts for any characters who have over 500 lines. If I remember correctly (the book is at home), *1H4* is the only play in which three characters (Hal, Falstaff, and Hotspur) have more than 500 lines. Michael Friedman University of Scranton ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:06:08 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0714 Re: State of Profession; Granville-Barker Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0714. Tuesday, 1 October 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 30 Sep 1996 21:11:58 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0707 Re: The State of the Profession (2) From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Tuesday, 1 Oct 1996 05:04:56 -0400 Subj: Granville-Barker (3) From: Clark Bowlen Date: Tuesday, 01 Oct 1996 14:41:14 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0706 Re: Granville-Barker (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 30 Sep 1996 21:11:58 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0707 Re: The State of the Profession Gabriel Egan writes: >All around the globe the north and west consume the wealth of the south and >east, and condemn the majority of the world's population to abject misery. The >computer I'm typing this on was constructed by a slave-child manacled to a >work-bench. Just exactly how is Shakespeare going to set him/her free? I imagine that Gabriel is looking for a certain answer to his question: Shakespeare--long dead--is not able to free the slaves of the world. Even his extant scripts are incapable of taking arms against a sea of capitalism. I think we have to make a distinction here between inert scripts and active humans. It is possible that certain humans who read Shakespeare's scripts or see his scripts acted may be thus motivated to take certain humanitarian actions. Who knows? But I doubt if Shakespeare's scripts or Marx's books will radicalize the masses. I certainly would be surprised if they did. Nevertheless, I'll bet that Gabriel feels just rotten to be criticizing Kezia's position while using a computer that he KNOWS has been built by slave children. My computer, in contrast, was built by ants in Africa. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Tuesday, 1 Oct 1996 05:04:56 -0400 Subject: Granville-Barker Dear Harry Hill, It's hard to see how Granville-Barker's tinkerings with the so-called 'thrust' stage and his other ill-conceived gestures in the direction of early modern performance square with his ultimate commitment to psychological realism. The modes of the one undermine the principles of the other. Needless to say, this contradiction flawed many of his productions, not least the one at the Old Vic in London in 1940. Gielgud, who gave a grateful nation his King Lear therein, offered the fatuous comment 'It seemed to take our minds off the awful things that were happening in France'. 'Ja', as Goethe used to say. That's precisely what was wrong with it. Terence Hawkes (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Bowlen Date: Tuesday, 01 Oct 1996 14:41:14 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0706 Re: Granville-Barker Granville-Barker's staging ideas were a reaction to the late Victorian carpenter's holiday productions of Shakespeare in huge, rigorously proscenium theaters, with tons of naturalistically rendered scenery flying in and out for every scene. Barker's instinct was for simplicity and for flow, for emphasis on the actor and the text. Like William Poel before him, he turned to the stages of Shakespeare's time as a means of achieving that. Barker, through his influence on Tyronne Guthrie and Tanya Moiseiwitch, can be give more than a little credit, not only for the bare-stage style of Shakespearian production that Guthrie/Moiseiwitch pioneered in Stratford Ontario, but for the very shape of the stages in many (most?) regional theaters in this country. No small legacy. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 09:13:53 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0715 Q: Shakespeare in Japan Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0715. Thursday, 3 October 1996. From: Brent Anton Zionic Date: Saturday, 28 Sep 1996 07:20:05 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare in Japan I received this address from as a recommendation. I had posed a question to the previous address pleading for information about Shakespeare in Japan. In particular, I am interested in any information connected with Shakespeare Societies or clubs in Japan, or anything on the location of the Tokyo Globe Theater (numbers and addresses), or the names of any professors doing research on these matters [Japanese or otherwise]. I'd really appreciate it if you can help me in any way with this information. Sincerely, Brent Anton Zionic ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 09:27:18 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0716 Re: The State of the Profession Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0716. Thursday, 3 October 1996. (1) From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Tuesday, 1 Oct 1996 12:31:34 PST Subj: State of the Profession (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 2 Oct 96 11:35:02 BST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0714 Re: State of Profession (3) From: David Knauer Date: Wednesday, 2 Oct 1996 10:13:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: The State of the Profession, World (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Tuesday, 1 Oct 1996 12:31:34 PST Subject: State of the Profession A contributor to this list suggests that there is much to be learned from Shakespeare's plays by reason of the sparkling variety of characters they contain. Gabriel Egan believes he undermines this suggestion by pointing to a category--non-aristocratic women who are not prostitutes--that he believes is underrepresented in Shakespeare's plays. Egan also claims that the northern and western nations of the world have "condemned" the majority of the world's population to misery. Is that because the billions of dollars in aid provided by northern and western nations have failed to overcome the effects of socialism and related forms of tyrrany that the southern and eastern nations have inflicted upon themselves? Bill Godshalk reports the abysmal news that at his university, Ph.D. candidates in English are offered far more courses in "theory" than in literature and that even seminars in literature are required to be "theory-driven." I am paying dearly for the undergraduate education my two children are currently receiving. If they want to learn something about politics and economics, I'd like them to learn it from people who know something about such matters. They MIGHT find such people in departments such as political science, history, and economics, but they are surely unlikely to find them in departments of literature. There are a number of things about life and their fellow human creatures they will not learn from social scientists, but that they could learn from serious and intelligently-guided reading of the plays of Shakespeare. (And, to make sure we cover enough non- aristocratic women, let us say the novels of Defoe, or Austen, or the Brontes, or Trollope, or what you will.) I believe it is a social problem worth deploring that instead of intelligent guiding through works of literature, what they are likely to receive from the graduates of the "theory-driven" courses described by Godshalk is the fatuous nonsense of people like Egan. Best, Dan Lowenstein UCLA Law School (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 2 Oct 96 11:35:02 BST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0714 Re: State of Profession William Godshalk picks up on a tension within my position: >I think we have to make a distinction here between inert scripts and active >humans. It is possible that certain humans who read Shakespeare's scripts or >see his scripts acted may be thus motivated to take certain humanitarian >actions. Quite. Kezia Sproat's posting suggested that merely reading the scripts makes one a better person, and that as Shakespeareans we should just go around promoting the reading of the scripts, inside or outside academia. (It doesn't really matter which, Kezia suggests). I don't doubt that Hitler could read and find value in Shakespeare scripts, so really it's the politically engaged position one takes in relation to the scripts that matters. Of course I consider "humanitarian actions" to be a rather woolly and patronizing way of looking at it. The poor are not simply misfortunates to be helped, but part of an economic process in which we are all located. >I doubt if Shakespeare's scripts or Marx's books will >radicalize the masses. I certainly would be surprised if they did. But you'd have to accept that Marx's books did, at certain times, do just that. My objection is to the passive model of consumption of books like they were medicine. And that's why theory courses should be compulsory (to draw in your line from another thread). How else am I going to fill students full of politics? Gabriel Egan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Knauer Date: Wednesday, 2 Oct 1996 10:13:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: The State of the Profession, World It seems that Gabriel Egan may be unwittingly giving aid and comfort to Kezia Sproat's Shakespeare-saves-the-world cheerleading/cultural imperialism when he asserts that his computer was built by a slave-child manacled to a workbench. If only the cogs in global capitalism were so easy to isolate, we could mail them their Shakespeare Care Packages directly. Truth be told, Egan's computer was most likely built in several contradictory places, both by happy technicians in white coats and by de facto slaves, which attenuates considerably the blunt relationship he imagines between academic material privilege and world labor suffering. Reading Raymond Williams isn't as stirring, but didn't he problematize the exchanges between base and superstructure sufficiently to show just how complex and therefore immune to reductive rhetoric such socio-economic formations are? David Knauer ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 09:32:30 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0717 Re: Lines per Character Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0717. Thursday, 3 October 1996. (1) From: Herman Asarnow Date: Monday, 30 Sep 1996 19:55:36 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0712 Q: Lines per character (2) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Tuesday, 01 Oct 96 21:37:27 EDT Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 29 Sep 1996 to 30 Sep 1996 (3) From: Norm Holland Date: Wednesday, 02 Oct 96 13:36:29 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0713 Re: Lines per Character (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Herman Asarnow Date: Monday, 30 Sep 1996 19:55:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0712 Q: Lines per character As I recall, the # of lines of the major characters of 1HIV is listed in one of the introductions at the beginning of the Pelican Shakespeare. I remember that the # of lines of Falstaff, Hal, and Hotspur are nearly the same. Herman Asarnow University of Portland (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Tuesday, 01 Oct 96 21:37:27 EDT Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 29 Sep 1996 to 30 Sep 1996 The multivolume Spevack Concordance has lines numbered and indeed concorded. But it's been too long since I've had one of those fat tomes in hand to remember much more. Is't possible to get that line information from the various search engines on our different e-texts? Must be! (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Wednesday, 02 Oct 96 13:36:29 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0713 Re: Lines per Character Many thanks to all of you who sent me leads for finding number of lines per character. You've been a real help. As a reader-response critic, I have to confess some amusement at how these countings vary from authority to authority, T. J. King, Harbage, Rolfe, Spevack. That's inevitable, I suppose, given the editorial problems of lineation. Still, it suggests a real limit to what non reader-response critics consider as "there." Again, thanks, and thanks to Hardy Cook for running this excellent list. --Norm Holland ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 09:37:36 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0718 "respecting": Shakespeare, Angley, Heston Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0718. Thursday, 3 October 1996. From: Frank Whigham Date: Tuesday, 01 Oct 1996 14:45:55 +50000 Subject: "respecting": Shakespeare, Angley, Heston Given the intensity of hostile rivalry between Protestant and Catholic adherents in early modern England (and Louis Montrose's contention that the Elizabethan state church and theater are likewise to be seen as specifically rivalrous), Mr. Bishop's mocking entertainment at the Rev. Ernest Angely's passion play seems mild enough, and suggests an interesting historical analogy. If the Elizabethan state put such effort into "suppressing" the cycle plays as papist, were there not probably many unextreme voices like Mr. Bishop's (who should perhaps be renamed for this purpose) deriving satisfaction from enemies' humiliations? Loathing other people's sincere faith, whether in various gods or arts, is an old practice. Surely Stubbes and Prynne offer samples of much more disrespectful passion? Indeed, is it not often assumed that "the people" lamented the suppression? I wonder if "their" responses were not much more varied than just pro and con. I think those of us who value the arts for a living pay too little attention to those who despise them; many Elizabethans surely felt complex versions of this alienation. I doubt that all Elizabethans will fit neatly into a general "folk" category on a matter of such political moment. Indeed, if modern academics (not anti-dancing evangelicals, for the most part) are ambivalent about TV drama (the dominant dramatic form of our own time, which many, probably most of us, watch daily), mightn't many Elizabethans have felt similarly mixed feelings -- including some theater-goers? On another front of the "respect" issue, seems to me that the various reactions from different folks to Shakespeare with movie stars, as to whether, say, Charlton Heston or Keanu Reeves are embarrassing or cool, contain a theoretical issue. We presumably all have feelings about bad acting and elitism. But I wonder what we think about just why, just how, "popular" actors and acting appeal, what's good or effective or appealing about Heston, why he's a Name. Put another way, can we explain how entertainment works, what needs it meets, what the experience of entertainment *is*, without resorting to verticalities about Art? (I bet many readers of this list watch Seinfeld and Law & Order regularly. This ought to matter.) Surely Shakespeare was a master at *using* star quality like Burbage's. What is it? And Michael Keaton's Dogberry may have been wretched (I thought so, anyway), but Chaplin's frame-breaking physical comedy was dazzling; maybe Kemp's jigs were too. (Seems likely, really.) After all, the early modern theater was, it's endlessly said, a "popular" theater. We need to think more about popular pleasures, as complex. I'm not happy with the view that Heston and Reeves just appeal to modern groundlings, but the notion of "entertainment" is not at all self-explanatory. Nor is it thin. If nothing else, this is certainly an important pedagogical issue. Frank Whigham PS. Any discussion of modern movie Shakespeare should involve the dazzling "Funny Bones," the purest reinvention of Shakespeare comedy I know, especially regarding physical comedy. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 09:39:12 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0719 Renaissance Position, specialty Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0719. Thursday, 3 October 1996. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 01 Oct 1996 17:07:37 -0400 Subject: Renaissance Position, specialty Shakespeare VISITING ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH at the University of Cincinnati January 1, 1997--December 31, 1997. Two courses per quarter (Winter, Spring, and Autumn; Summer optional). Shakespeare, general literature, composition. Ph.D. (defended by January 1997) with specialty in English Renaissance, especially Shakespeare. Apply to James M. Hall, Head, Dept. of English, U. of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210069, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0069. AA/EOE. Inquiries welcome at halljm@ucenglish.mcm.uc.edu or at (513) 556-5924. Deadline for applications: November 1, 1996. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 09:41:38 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0720 Olympia Dukakis' Lear Piece Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0720. Thursday, 3 October 1996. From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 2 Oct 1996 15:21:56 -0400 Subject: Olympia Dukakis' Lear Piece A regular of my theatre chat room, The Stage Door on AOL, is the PR director for the Shakespeare Festival of Dallas. For the past month or so, she's been panicked about selling tix to this piece, and since she's resisted my suggestion to entitle it "Lear and His Babes" ["Oooh, Daddy, I love you *this* much"...], I told her I would try to post it to this newsgroup. I would be interested in hearing anyone's review of how it goes. Jo has been beserk about it. OLYMPIA DUKAKIS PREMIERS IN THE MYSTERY OF THINGS... A WOMAN'S EXPLORATION OF LEAR On October 5, 1996, Olympia Dukakis will perform the world premier of her one-woman production, "The Mystery of Things... A Woman's Exploration of Lear"at Dallas' historic Majestic Theatre. Conceived by Ms. Dukakis and Dennis Krausnick, "The Mystery of Things... A Woman's Exploration of Lear" is a dramatic soliloquy using the text of William Shakespeare's "King Lear". Relations, which are probably one the greatest mysteries for mankind to understand, are the focus of Ms. Dukakis' exploration. Ms. Dukakis wil perform excepts from "King Lear" playing the characters of King Lear and his daughters Goneril, Regan and Cordelia. The passages will highlight a woman's relationship to the uses and abuses of power, true authority and tyranny, the love and anger that bonds parent to child and the acceptance of aging. Ms. Dukakis is a renowned actor of stage and screen. She defines herself as an actress, producer, teacher and activist. She has performed in over 100 productions on Broadway, Off-Broadway and regionally. She is also well-known for her many screen performances such as "Moonstruck" and "Steel Magnolias" and has received a multitude of awards including an Academy Award and two Golden Globe Awards. This critically acclaimed actor continues to actively create and develop theatre projects. Her passion for the works of William Shakespeare and her regard for Dallas' Shakespeare Festival of Dallas have led her to choose Dallas as the location for the premier of her latest work. In the past 25 years, the Shakespeare Festival of Dallas has attracted audiences totaling almost one million people. Award-winning actors for around the country have participated in the summer performances of Shakespeare, which are offered free of charge to the greater Dallas community. "The Mystery of Things... A Woman's Exploration of Lear" is part of the Shakespeare Festival of Dallas' newest concept, the Spotlight Series, which brings highly acclaimed actors to Dallas to perform their unique interpretations of Shakespeare's greatest works. "To have such a talented actor support the Shakespeare Festival of Dallas is truly a great compliment," says Cliff Redd, the Executive Producer of the Festival. "This premier performance is something so special for the Dallas community, we wanted to make it accessible to all. We have purposely priced the event to make it affordable to everyone." Tickets for this special performance are on sale now through ARTTIX, with prices at $15, 20, $35, $50 and $150. The $150 Patron ticket includes a private cocktail party the evening prior to the performance on October 4, with an appearance by Olympia Dukakis, as well as a dessert and champagne reception following the performance on October 5. To order tickets, please call ARTTIX at (214) 871-ARTS. For additional information on "The Mystery of Things... A Woman's Exploration of Lear" or the Shakespeare Festival of Dallas, please call (214) 559-2778. Contact: Jo Trizila Ingerson, Shakespeare Festival of Dallas, (214) 559-2778 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 09:43:21 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0721 Re: Old Criticism (Barker vs. Bradley) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0721. Thursday, 3 October 1996. From: David Schalkwyk Date: Thursday, 3 Oct 1996 12:15:05 SAST-2 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0706 Re: Old Criticism (Barker vs. Bradley) The answer to Ed Pechter's question about why we continue to reproduce an anti-historical and anti-theatrical Bradley is probably quite simple. It is the most natural thing in the world to misrepresent any writer that few people read any longer. David Schalkwyk University of Cape Town ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 08:13:04 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0722 Re: The State of the Profession Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0722. Saturday, 5 October 1996. (1) From: Framji Minwalla Date: Thursday, 3 Oct 1996 10:46:50 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0716 Re: The State of the Profession (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 3 Oct 96 21:41:24 BST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0716 Re: The State of the Profession (3) From: Edward T Bonahue Date: Thursday, 3 Oct 1996 17:44:32 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0716 Re: The State of the Profession (4) From: Kezia Sproat Date: Friday, 4 Oct 1996 10:53:52 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0716 Re: The State of the Profession (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Framji Minwalla Date: Thursday, 3 Oct 1996 10:46:50 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0716 Re: The State of the Profession Daniel Lowenstein's broadside against Gabriel Egan is the kind of deplorable thinking most people in this country are saddled with. While it is unfortunate that so many literature courses advance secondary at the expense of primary texts, this clearly does not mean we should ignore the powerful implications theoretical readings suggest about the sociopolitical climates in which these texts were conceived and disseminated. Teaching undergraduates and graduates that literature was made in a cultural vacuum would be like teaching law students about the constitution without considering when or how it was written. And the reason Mr. Lowenstein is paying an excessive amount to send his children to school clearly is because we have no socialist "tyranny" in this country. The state of the profession is actually the state of the university under siege from a capitalist society that consistently denigrates teachers. As Rudy Giuliani put it, teachers should get second jobs if they feel they're not making enough money--after all, they only work a ten-hour week. Mr. Lowenstein might serve himself, and his students, better by paying more mind to the inequities rampant in the world, and less attention to party-political hype that claims the US spends so much helping the rest of the world. It actually doesn't--less than 10% of the budget goes to foreign aid. Even less than that to education. Framji Minwalla (framji.minwalla@harpercollins.com) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 3 Oct 96 21:41:24 BST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0716 Re: The State of the Profession David Knauer writes >Truth be told, Egan's computer >was most likely built in several contradictory places, both by happy >technicians in white coats and by de facto slaves... Okay, I'll grant that. >Reading Raymond Williams isn't as >stirring, but didn't he problematize the exchanges between base and >superstructure sufficiently to show just how complex and therefore >immune to reductive rhetoric such socio-economic formations are? None of this is to do with superstructure. Discussion of where my computer was made concerns only the base. I live and work in affluent western Europe and my rate of consumption of the world's resources could not be sustained without the third world's massive contribution. If the west gives a little back in the form of aid, it's made conditional upon economic re-organization which renders the recipients even less able to resist the systematic removal of their resources. It's a bit sly to bring in Williams to suggest my simple model of movement of resources is inadequate when you know that it's base/superstructure relations he's concerned with. I imagine Kezia Sproat thinks that the Shakespeare texts plays no part in all this, but the ongoing education of young middle-class persons is essential to the maintenance of the system of removal of resources westwards and northwards. One can choose to teach the texts as a remedy to the misery of the world, but only if you believe that it's all a terrible misunderstanding that can be sorted out over the domestic chores. If you think that economic structures, and especially notions of property, are the problem, you'd probably look in the texts for moments when economic structures and notions of property are made apparent and, as so often happens, problematized. You might also want to discuss the uses to which the texts have been put in an effort to draw attention away from economic and political processes (as Terry Hawkes commented upon earlier, concerning Granville-Barker's Old Vic _King Lear_). Gabriel Egan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward T Bonahue Date: Thursday, 3 Oct 1996 17:44:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0716 Re: The State of the Profession I'm sure Gabriel Egan's zeal for filling students full of politics will receive a chorus of raucous responses, especially on our side of the Atlantic. (Quite ironic, actually, considering the MLA's usual docket of causes, most of which, incidentally, I agree with.) But if I might ask Gabriel a question, one materialist to another: would you make a distinction in any way between (1) teaching literture as a process of recognizing that all writers and readers have "political positions" (even if they don't know it or won't admit it), _without_ necessarily endorsing one or another position; and (2) teaching literature as a means of stuffing students with personal political views, for which most of us have no mandate and in which students have little interest. Or do you think the first should always lead to the second? A sophomore from my Brit Lit survey, reading over my shoulder, offers another relevant question: "Why does he teach English instead of political science or philosophy, if that's what really interests him?" Thanks in advance, Ed Bonahue University of Florida (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kezia Sproat Date: Friday, 4 Oct 1996 10:53:52 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0716 Re: The State of the Profession My post on the value of spending years studying Shakespeare and widely sharing the fruits of that study has been misread, and that's partly my responsibility for having dealt with too many ideas in a short space, having let go and written as if I were talking to friends or kindred souls, in an effort to encourage the many PhDs who will not be employed in academia. The principal misreading, by Egan, is that I said Shakespeare can save the world. Certainly Shakespeare is dead, and I was referencing people who study Shakespeare's works---for a long time and seriously. Egan had to stretch what I wrote, at several points and in several directions, before he could show how ridiculous I was, and softens at the end of his tirade at the memory of Joe Hill (as do I). As a lifelong student of Shakespeare and teacher of nonviolence, I am most interested in what drives people who appear to be established Shakespeareans to feel the need to misrepresent the ideas of others by reducing them to absurdity. Defensiveness is usually exhibited among those who feel insecure. Perhaps all those whose economic health derives from the study of Shakespeare's texts feel insecure, academic appointments or no? I find the study of Shakespeare a pleasure, and believe pleasure makes me and others more sturdy of soul, more able to withstand tribulation, less willing to cause distress to others. Take heart, Egan. If you lose your job, you will still have the pleasure of Shakespeare, and that can be a source of strength. My little rhapsody did intend to suggest that---assuming, (wrongly as it turns out) that Shakespeareans are good at reading carefully statements made by a huge assortment of characters---the oversupply of PhDs may employ themselves happily across the planet, sans academic positions, because they have developed essential, increasingly rare, and much-needed skills, to wit: listening intently, reproducing accurately what another has said, and saying what one means oneself very clearly. Without those skills there is no peace. [<------Repeat that sentence about 1000 times, apply to families, departments, listservs, cities, nations]. I stand by every word in the rhapsody. To respond fully to Prof. Egan's put-down will take (and has inspired an outline for) another book. Prof. Egan may attend my nonviolence classes at Highbank Farm Peace Education Center tuition free. In fact, so may any PhD in Shakespeare who wants to come to Chillicothe. Then we can start another new "school" of Shakespeare study: Nonviolence. This quite old but very new area of study may provide the long and full answer to Prof. Egan's distress about his computer, etc. I may have prompted Egan's verbal violence with the violent language I addressed at deans and university presidents. That violence begets violence is a major tenet of nonviolence studies. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 08:17:18 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0723 Re: Shakespeare in Japan Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0723. Saturday, 5 October 1996. (1) From: John Cox Date: Thursday, 03 Oct 1996 10:20:21 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shakespeare in Japan (2) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 3 Oct 1996 13:26:34 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0715 Q: Shakespeare in Japan (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Thursday, 03 Oct 1996 10:20:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare in Japan At the time of the World Shakespeare Congress in Tokyo (1991), the president of the Shakespeare Society of Japan was Yasunari Takahashi, University of Tokyo. He would know who is president now. The address of the Panasonic Globe Theater is: 1-2, 3-chome, Hyakunincho, Shinjuku-ku, 169 Tokyo. John Cox Hope College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 3 Oct 1996 13:26:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0715 Q: Shakespeare in Japan Brian, to complement your interest in Shakespeare in Japan, there is a Kabuki master, Shozo Sato, who will be working here at the University of Illinois on a Kabuki adaptation of Othello, called "Iago's Revenge." Master Shozo Sato is well known here for his extensive work with adaptations of Shakespeare to the Kabuki tradition, which in so many ways parallels the development of the Elizabethan theater scene. His work has influenced a lot of the Chicago Theater Scene, most notably Wisdom Bridge Theater (who studied here in Urbana-Champaign with Sato) and now the Defiant Theater, a new avant-garde group that uses Kabuki technique as a part of their performance methods, integrating it with a number of other western elements for some fascinating viewing. Andy White Urbana, Illinois ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 08:19:56 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0724 Re: "Respecting" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0724. Saturday, 5 October 1996. From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 03 Oct 1996 14:32 ET Subject: SHK 7.0718 "respecting": Shakes Three marks to Frank Whigham for reminding us that Shakespeare was and still should be Entertainment Tonight--one problem with filling people up with politics, as Gabriel Egan apparently wishes to do, is that all the fun gets squeezed out in the process, and what's left has a lot of dry, harsh, indigestible fiber in it. This is not to say that people should not be encouraged to notice that the plays _don't_ pay much attention to prostitutes. Though does anybody besides me remember Martha Henry's terrifying Doll Tearsheet in a Stratford, Ont. 2H4 15 or so years ago? I can still visualize the savage gesture with which she whipped the concealed knife from her boot to keep 3 very much larger and younger constables very busy for 20 seconds or before she was dragged off the stage. Now that's entertainment! Which happened also to condense and focus a lot of socio-economic reality, not just because Henry is a brilliant actor but because there are things in that text that foster such a reading of that beat. Entertainedly, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 08:27:03 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0725 Qs: Electronic Materials; R3 Deformities; Sabbatical Enquiry Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0725. Saturday, 5 October 1996. (1) From: Milla Riggio Date: Thursday, 03 Oct 1996 12:43:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: [Q: Electronic Materials] (2) From: Jim Helsinger Date: Friday, 4 Oct 1996 00:14:35 -0400 Subj: RIII Deformities (3) From: David Schalkwyk Date: Friday, 4 Oct 1996 15:15:25 SAST-2 Subj: Sabbatical Enquiry (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Thursday, 03 Oct 1996 12:43:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Q: Electronic Materials] Dear Fellow Shakesperians: Finishing up a small project, I am trying to see what editions of Shakespeare are attached to available electronic materials. I think the two primary editions so used are the Oxford, for which there is of course the entire electronic edition, and the Riverside. But can you help me with specific information on what programs, CD-rom and otherwise, might be linked with specific Shakespearian editions? Thanks. Milla Riggio (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Helsinger Date: Friday, 4 Oct 1996 00:14:35 -0400 Subject: RIII deformities I am directing a production of Richard III next Spring and have been having long conversations with the lead actor about deformity possibilities. We've discussed previously performed deformities such as Ian Mckellan's unusable arm, Antony Sher's crutches, Stacy Keach's leg braces, Olivier's slight hump, etc, etc. We are not very interested in copycatting what another performer has done, but it is very informative to hear of other ways the role has been performed. I wanted to ask the group: What you have seen that has been effective? Any other thoughts on the play? What about the human side of Richard? I think Richard is a much more straight forward villian/vice character than, for instance, Iachimo, Iago or Macbeth. In what ways have you seen his need for love, compassion, and friendship effectively shown in production? How has the journey of how he became who he is in the play been effectively told (besides reading the Henry VI plays...)? Thanks in advance for any feedback. You can post to the list or directly to me at JHelsinger@aol.com PS: I don't mean to drag any politics into this list, but I've found it very interesting to watch Bob Dole's physicality on compaign while working on this play. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Schalkwyk Date: Friday, 4 Oct 1996 15:15:25 SAST-2 Subject: Sabbatical Enquiry This is a general request for advice about a sabbatical that is not entirely unconnected to the subject of Shakespeare. My wife and I plan to spend a year-long sabbatical outside South Africa in 1998 or 1999, and I was wondering whether anyone could offer some advice about where to go. I'm planning to embark on a project on Shakespeare and language which will combine a knowledge of twentieth- century theories and philosophies of language with Renaissance theories of language and rhetoric. My wife is a constitutional lawyer, especially in the fields of Human Rights Law and women's rights. She is currently a member of the panel of experts advising the South African Constitutional Assembly on the writing of the new constitution. She holds the Chair of Human Rights law at the University of Cape Town. I'm a Senior Lecturer in the English Department at UCT. We have two children, aged 10 and 7. We would ideally like to visit an institution that is strong in both constitutional law and Renaissance studies; preferably one which has some form of money available in the form of Visiting or Research Fellowships. It would also be useful for me to have access to a library with a large Renaissance collection or at least a fairly comprehensive microfilm collection. Does anyone have any suggestions or offers? I can be contacted directly via e-mail: schalk@beattie.uct.ac.za. CVs can be sent to anyone interested. We have already spent a number of years doing research in England, and so, for the sake of variety, would prefer not to go back there. Thanks David Schalkwyk English Department University of Cape Town Private Bag Rondebosch 7700 South Africa Phone: (021) 650-3373 Fax: (021) 650-3726========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 14:13:24 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0726 Re: The State of the Profession Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0726. Monday, 7 October 1996. (1) From: Michael Yogev Date: Saturday, 5 Oct 1996 15:24:02 +0300 (WET) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0722 Re: The State of the Profession (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 6 Oct 96 00:18:43 BST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0722 Re: The State of the Profession (3) From: William Proctor Williams Date: Sunday, 06 Oct 96 00:27 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0722 Re: The State of the Profession (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Saturday, 5 Oct 1996 15:24:02 +0300 (WET) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0722 Re: The State of the Profession If I may jump in just briefly on the Kezia Sproat and Gabriel Egan exchange, it seems to me that Kezia's latest defense of her defense of Shakespeare is protesting a bit much, not to mention missing much of the point of Egan's remarks. I agree with Kezia that the close reading and teaching of Shakespeare can make us better close readers and more accomplished speakers, but I think Egan's point is that we need the purchase of critical theory to recognize how much violence we can commit even in our best-intentioned and most earnest approaches to "literature". Bloom's Western canon has produced cannons, cannon-makers, and abundant justifications for both, which is why the work of such critics as Alan Sinfield, Ania Loomba, and Homhi K. Bhabha (to name three favorites) is so important as a querying supplement to the grand tradition of celebratory Western criticism of its beloved Bard. To take just one example, I never learned to truly love _The Tempest_ until I had encountered John Guillory's excellent book, _Cultural Capital_, and considered how Prospero is in many respects the quintessential pedagogue, controlling all the capital at hand and dispensing it according to his view of control over the various classes on his island. But even before him, W.H. Auden wrote one of the most astounding and devastating "re-visions" of Shakespeare's supposedly semi-autobiographical last play in his _The Sea and the Mirror_, the final section of which ("Caliban to the Audience") will alter forever any careful reader's prior sense of the play's so-called "celebration of art." Where I live, Kezia's message of non-violence would be most welcome any time. But don't count on Shakespeare, at least in his more traditional readings and editions, to do much for that cause. Branagh's Henry V sat right back in the old nationalist, jingoist, slow-motion celebration of violence for the sake of English sovereignty that continues to haunt the consciousness of post-colonial and post-imperial nations worldwide. Michael Yogev University of Haifa (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 6 Oct 96 00:18:43 BST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0722 Re: The State of the Profession Ed Bonahue writes >But if I might ask Gabriel a question, one materialist to another: would you >make a distinction in any way between (1) teaching literture as a process of >recognizing that all writers and readers have "political positions" (even if >they don't know it or won't admit it), _without_ necessarily endorsing one or >another position; and (2) teaching literature as a means of stuffing students >with personal political views, for which most of us have no mandate and in >which students have little interest. Or do you think the first should always >lead to the second? If (1) is true, then (2) is bound to happen, isn't it? If, as a reader and writer, my work is suffused with my "political position" (whether I know it or admit it), my teaching will be too. The students find that when I assert (1)--that everyone has an axe to grind--I naturally have to come clean and talk about my own interpretative agenda. This being in the open gives them a much better ground from which to engage with, and resist, my interpretations. "Filling them full of politics" simply means working against their earlier, pre-university, study which has been directed away from theory and away from position (1). Most students are not so dim as to believe in an interpretative free-for-all. Many are vaguely aware that underlying their earlier study were political ideas (about universality, experience, aesthetic value, etc) which their educators wouldn't admit were present. Theory courses, where these processes are explicitly up for discussion, are valued most by those students who want to do more than merely become more familiar with canonical texts. But, I suggest, ALL students find that learning to read is political. On the whole, students become more left-wing as they become better readers. So, in effect, I do (2) whether I think I should or not. As to: "Why does he teach English instead of political science or philosophy, if that's what really interests him?" You'd have to show me the difference before I could answer. Gabriel Egan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Proctor Williams Date: Sunday, 06 Oct 96 00:27 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0722 Re: The State of the Profession OK, I hate to jump into a mess like this, but on this last Weds night I taught a class of 20 freshmen and sophmores "The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner", "Ozymandias" and "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock." The class lasts for 75 mins. It was a bit hectic, but we came through quite well, I thought. It may have been helped by the fact that we had done, the previous week, "Is my team ploughing?" and "The Windhover." My point is, I guess, that I am getting tired of hearing about how our undergraduates are "not up to it." It is my experience that they are more than up to it. Indeed, I do not believe that I could have the same sort of conversation about these poems with more than one or two of my professorial colleagues over coffee. Could it be that we (the faculty) are "not up to it"? William Proctor Williams Northern Illinois University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 14:17:16 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0727 Q; Shakespeare Gallery Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0727. Monday, 7 October 1996. From: Daniel Traister Date: Saturday, 5 Oct 1996 09:56:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Q; Shakespeare Gallery [Editor's Note: Dan Traister forwards this question from the 18th Century Interdisciplinary Discussion . Please respond DIRECTLY to the questioner, Janis Wellington .] Could someone point me to a good source of information on John Boydell's Shakespeare Gallery, which seems to have flourished around 1787? I've checked several books about Georgian London with little success; the references I've run across in contemporary periodicals and poems suggest it was a place, a book, or both. I'd like to know more . . . . Jan Wellington ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 14:23:20 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0728 Granville-Barker; "Respecting"; Richard the Third Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0728. Monday, 7 October 1996. (1) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Saturday, 5 Oct 1996 15:13:12 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0714 Re: Granville-Barker (2) From: Kenneth Brown Date: Sunday, 6 Oct 1996 08:53:02 -0600 (MDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0724 Re: "Respecting" (3) From: Kenneth Brown Date: Sunday, 6 Oct 1996 09:00:28 -0600 (MDT) Subj: Re: Richard the Third (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Saturday, 5 Oct 1996 15:13:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0714 Re: Granville-Barker Terry writes: > Dear Harry Hill, It's hard to see how Granville-Barker's tinkerings with the > so-called 'thrust' stage and his other ill-conceived gestures in the direction > of early modern performance square with his ultimate commitment to > psychological realism. The modes of the one undermine the principles of the > other. But so what? This just shows that the man has enough taste not to be slave to his own theories. > Needless to say, this contradiction flawed many of his productions, not > least the one at the Old Vic in London in 1940. Gielgud, who gave a grateful > nation his King Lear therein, offered the fatuous comment 'It seemed to take > our minds off the awful things that were happening in France'. 'Ja', as Goethe > used to say. That's precisely what was wrong with it. Would an audience incapable of taking its mind off disastrous contemporary events be capable of wanting peace? Or even thinking of a peaceful situation, in which one can, for instance, read literature, as possible? Cheers, Sean. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Brown Date: Sunday, 6 Oct 1996 08:53:02 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0724 Re: "Respecting" Re David Evett's reference to Martha Henry playing Doll Tearsheet. Indeed, I too remember this rivetting performance, and wish to assure Mr. Evett that she was equally perfect as the ancient curmudgeon of Albee's Three Tall Women last year, in the preeminent Canadian production of that play. There is also a fine new film of Long Day's Journey featuring Ms. Henry. What an actress! (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Brown Date: Sunday, 6 Oct 1996 09:00:28 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: Richard the Third In response to Mr. Helsinger's inquiry, I have always believed that Richard's speech in 3HenryVI is the most pychologically powerful speech of any of S's villains. Why love forswore me in my mother's womb And for I should not deal in her soft laws She did corrupt frail nature with some bribe To shrink mine arm like a withered shrub... I may be mistaken, but I believe I heard a piece of it in McKellan's latest RIII version. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 08:21:02 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0729 The Mother of All Henry's Redux Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0729. Tuesday, 9 October 1996. From: Jung Jimmy Date: Sunday, September 29, 1996 11:55AM Subject: The Mother of All Henry's Redux I stayed awake!!! Not normally high praise for a play, but when the play in question is a four hour combination of the Henry the 6th plays (and I was operating on little sleep myself) I think it is high praise indeed. Washington's Shakespeare Theatre is doing Henry the 6th condensed to fit into one evening, a long evening; but if you've ever had a desire to see the H6 plays, I think this is the way to go. It seems like a cast of thousands, there is a ton of doubling and tripling, and before it's over, there characters on stage that I had no idea who they were. On of the more interesting doubles seemed to me to be Glouster's wife, Eleanor and Edward IV's wife, Lady Grey. Eleanor's thwarted ambition seems to live on and be realized in Lady Grey. The boy playing young Henry the 6th in part 1 also returns to play Edward his son in part 3, leaving you with the peculiar impression of Henry talking to himself in the scenes they share. Necessity demands that there was a fair amount of cutting, but I haven't quite figured out where yet. I know I saw less of Joan of Arc than I remember. Which brings me to my questions: First, what other Henry the 6th conflations have been tried, and how have they been received. It also struck me as odd, that in this mess of characters, there doesn't seem to be any heros (maybe Gloucester, who dies early) and definitely no "central" perspective to pull you through the play. You would think, as the title character, Henry would provide some sort of reflecting point for all the action and the players, but he is so weak and he seems to disappear for long stretches; I have a hard time caring about him. Lastly, there seem to be a number of instances of superstition: Joan summoning demons, Eleanor at the fortune tellers, even the trial by combat of Horner and Peter. In each case (at least in this staging) they were revealed to be false superstitions; Joan's demons never come, the fortune tellers are obvious fakes and God plays no role in Peter's defeat of Horner. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of Peter's defeat of Horner, Henry declares, God in justice hath revealed to us the truth and innocence of this poor fellow." It left me feeling that Henry's religion is also being held out as a mere superstition. Has anyone commented on the occurrence of Magic in H6 or Shakespeare's atheistic tendencies? Like I said, it playing in Washington DC and I recommend it. I particularly enjoyed the performance of Margaret and York and a really weasely Richard (almost III). There's a Starbucks down the street, you may want to stop by on your way in. jimmy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 08:49:07 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0730 Re: The State of the Profession Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0730. Tuesday, 9 October 1996. (1) From: John Drakakis Date: Monday, 7 Oct 1996 23:43:00 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0726 Re: The State of the Profession (2) From: Paul Hawkins Date: Monday, 7 Oct 1996 19:34:57 -0400 (EDT) Subj: the state of the profession (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 07 Oct 1996 21:23:31 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0716 Re: The State of the Profession (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 07 Oct 1996 22:30:57 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0726 Re: The State of the Profession (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Monday, 7 Oct 1996 23:43:00 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0726 Re: The State of the Profession I suppose it all comes back to what Ed Bonahue means by "materialist". I presume that if he thinks that there is a materialist account of Literature, or Shakespearean texts, he would need to explain how he manages to separate the position from which he views them from what, I take him to be suggesting is some "intrinsic" value which he seems to assume they possess. Even F.R.Leavis, rabidly anti-theoretical though he was, had the wit to realize that "there is a value implicit in the realizing". Is Bonahoe's red-necked parade of manifestly political prejudice just another case of terminological profligacy? Or is this just another example of playing with terms...as in "we're all materialists now, but we don't really need either to investigate what the term means, or what impact that statement might have on our critical practice(s)". Unless he is prepared to give us some idea of what he means by "materialist", then I'm not sure we can really understand what he says, least of all his confused coat-trailing. Come back Florence Amit, all is forgiven John Drakakis (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Monday, 7 Oct 1996 19:34:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: the state of the profession To Gabriel Egan: When you write that in criticizing texts, "everyone has an axe to grind," are you expressing a simple truth, or are you grinding an axe? If the former, then your statement is patently false. If the latter, then your statement need not command anyone's belief. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 07 Oct 1996 21:23:31 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0716 Re: The State of the Profession Gabriel Egan writes concerning my injudicious use of words: >Of course I consider "humanitarian actions" to be a rather woolly and >patronizing way of looking at it. The poor are not simply misfortunates to be >helped, but part of an economic process in which we are all located. Patronizing? I wonder who's patronizing whom, and I wonder who's woolly. I am actually located in Cincinnati, not in an economic process. People are only figuratively placed in a process. We may live by metaphors, but our thinking is sometimes rendered woolly by their use. Beware of the "dark currents of ideology"! Egan claims that I will have to accept that Marx's books "did, at certain times," radicalize the masses. Well, no, I don't have to accept this. As Kurt Vonnegut cynically points out, books definitely do NOT radicalize the masses. That's why we have a free press in the US. It's not a danger to the status quo. The masses may never be radicalized, and, if they are, they are radicalized by a complex of issues, etc., not by a select number of books--heaven forfend! Egan goes on (tongue in cheek, I gather): >My objection is to the passive model of consumption of books like they were >medicine. And that's why theory courses should be compulsory (to draw in your >line from another thread). How else am I going to fill students full of >politics? I reply: When a student signs up for a course in literary theory, she may expect reasonably to be taught about literary theory--not about politics. Is it a good policy to mislead one's students? I don't think so. My advice (gratis) is: If you want to teach politics, get a degree in political science, and teach in the Department of Political Science. Then you can legitimately pour political theory into the empty vessels sitting before you. Self-righteously, I remain, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 07 Oct 1996 22:30:57 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0726 Re: The State of the Profession When asked: >"Why does he teach English instead of political science or philosophy, if >that's what really interests him?" Gabriel Egan responds: >You'd have to show me the difference before I could answer. A very interesting answer. I teach a course in which I have students read Darwin, Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, and other perhaps-less-well-known writers like Ernest Becker. Why is this course listed under English rather than Biology, Political Science, Psychoanalysis, Philosophy, and Social Science? I suppose because I don't ask my students to read Darwin for his contribution to biology, but as a literary text. We are more interested in things like form and rhetoric, significant variations in sentence structure, metaphors--which are different from an interest in evolution and genetics. In fact, the purpose of the course is to provide students with a background to twentieth century imaginative literature--like plays, poems, novels. Could Gabriel see a difference among teaching ballet, portrait painting, acting, costume designing, and Pynchon? These are all courses taught at some, if not all, American universities. Or is ALL teaching really the same? Is all teaching a political activity--and the same in kind? If so, Gabriel's point seems rather reductive. And others might insist on a different adjective to replace "political." For example, "all teaching is absurd." I personally hope that Gabriel is correct when he says that the more educated a student becomes, the more left wing that student becomes. Of course, as a cynical old man, I wouldn't bet my pay check on it. But, if it is true, you can see why American conservatives don't want to support university education! Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 08:50:41 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0731 Gielgud & Beauty Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0731. Tuesday, 9 October 1996. From: Andrew Walker White Date: Monday, 7 Oct 1996 18:53:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Gielgud & Beauty Perhaps the disturbing thing for me of the criticism of the 1940 Lear is that it seeks to condemn two great artists for doing, in a time of crisis, perhaps the only thing they knew how to do well. Is it fair to condemn an actor and director for making a gesture of cultural solidarity with their fellow countrymen? It will always look frivolous to some people when artists push themselves to produce great works of art with the shadow of war looming over everyone, but it will always look noble and perfectly appropriate to others. Should Gielgud and Barker have ditched that silly little Lear for something like "Chu Chin Chow"? Should they, instead, have started to dig trenches? What, exactly, should they have done instead? Gielgud is well known to be incapable of serious political discourse, and yes he has a reputation for vanity and preciousness. But this is the same man who, in the thick of the war, toured in Hamlet, trying to give something of himself to the many who were facing the horror of battle. From the memoirs of his wartime shows, particularly his last performance in Egypt, it seems that far from dismissive, the soldiers hung on his every word and gesture. P.S. -- as for the sop against realism, may I remind everyone that it was Burbage, not Barker, who set the standard for such? Do I really need to remind everyone of the standard the Bard himself set for his company? "Speech the speech" was an injunction to avoid unrealistic behavior; trash realism, and you trash the Bard's own. Andy White Urbana, IL ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 08:13:54 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0732 Re: The Mother of All Henry's Redux Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0732. Wednesday, 9 October 1996. (1) From: Norman J. Myers Date: Tuesday, 8 Oct 1996 09:52:54 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0729 The Mother of All Henry's Redux (2) From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Tuesday, 8 Oct 1996 13:56:01 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0729 The Mother of All Henry's Redux (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman J. Myers Date: Tuesday, 8 Oct 1996 09:52:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0729 The Mother of All Henry's Redux On Oct. 8 Jimmy Jung asked: >First, what other Henry the 6th conflations have been tried, and how have they >been received. You might be interested in my modest offering, "Finding a 'Heap of Jewels' in 'Lesser' Shakespeare: The Wars of the Roses and Richard Duke of York, which compares the rationales for adaptation given by the authors of each. The first is, of course, the famous Royal Shakespeare Company production, and the second is an adaptation prepared 1817 for Edmund Kean. I found the rationales remarkably similar. It's in the New England Theatre Journal volume 7 (1996). Norman Myers Bowling Green State University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Tuesday, 8 Oct 1996 13:56:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0729 The Mother of All Henry's Redux I saw the same production this weekend and had a very different reaction, perhaps because I saw Barry Kyle's version last year at the Theater for a New Audience in New York, which I found stunning. It seemed to me that Michael Kahn's version was far too genteel, cutting most of Joan, most of the grotesque business (like Margaret fondling Suffolk's severed head), much of the business that centered on non-elite characters (the entire Simpcox episode, Jack Cade's encounter with Alexander Iden), etc. All this, I thought, in the interest of constructing a unified story centered on the king and his conflict with York--weak man vs. strong, sensitive soul vs. macho warrior, etc., etc., etc. There's going to be another production this winter at the Public Theater in New York, also a conflated version. Maybe now that the plays seem to be in style, we'll get full productions of each of them. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 08:48:50 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0736 Summer Study Group Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0736. Wednesday, 9 October 1996. From: Joanne Walen Date: Tuesday, 8 Oct 1996 20:22:52 -0400 Subject: Summer Study Group The 2nd annual "Shakespeare at Stratford: Text and Theater" summer study group in collaboration with the Shakespeare Centre and the Shakespeare Institute, University of Birmingham, will take place June 22-28, 1997 in Stratford-upon-Avon, England. We will see six of the eleven productions of the Royal Shakespeare Company, talk with actors and scholars (including Robert Smallwood of Stratford and Miriam Gilbert, University of Iowa), go backstage, and connect with new ideas. We will talk, debate, observe, talk some more, and laugh. All the while we will be very well looked after in private guesthouses where someone else will do the cooking for breakfast and dinner. The 1997 RSC season: *Much Ado about Nothing* (Alex Jennings, Benedick; Siobhan Redmond, Beatrice), *The Merry Wives of Windsor* directed by Ian Judge, *Cymbeline* (Joanne Pearce, Imogen) directed by Adrian Noble, *Henry VIII*, Ibsen's *Little Eyolf* directed by Adrian Noble, Tennessee Williams' *Camino Real* directed by Steven Pimlott, *Hamlet (Alex Jennings, Hamlet) directed by Matthew Warchus, *Everyman* directed by Kathryn Hunter and Marcello Magni, Mystery Plays: "The Passion" and "The Creation" directed by Katie Mitchell, and Kyd's *The Spanish Tragedy* directed by Michael Boyd. The course counts for 45 hours of professional development hours or three relicensing credits for Nevada teachers. The cost of $815, airfare not included, covers seven nights' lodging with full breakfasts daily and five 3-course dinners, entrance fees to all Shakespeare properties, top-price tickets for six RSC productions, pre-show lectures and post-show discussions, and four guest discussions with RSC actors. For further information or references, contact or Joanne Walen, 702-852-1637 (until Oct 26 or after Apr 1) or 602-807-5114 (Oct 27 to Apr 1) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 08:30:34 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0733 Re: Gielgud & Beauty and Hamlet to the Players Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0733. Wednesday, 9 October 1996. (1) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Tuesday, 8 Oct 1996 08:14:15 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0731 Gielgud & Beauty (2) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 8 Oct 1996 11:33:53 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0731 Gielgud & Beauty (3) From: Jesus Cora Date: Tuesday, 8 Oct 1996 18:15:35 UTC+0100 Subj: SHK 7.0731 Gielgud & Beauty (4) From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 8 Oct 1996 14:22:13 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0731 Gielgud & Beauty (5) From: Ron Macdonald Date: Tuesday, 08 Oct 1996 17:12:56 -0500 (EST) Subj: Hamlet to the Players (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Tuesday, 8 Oct 1996 08:14:15 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0731 Gielgud & Beauty Dear Friends and Colleagues, This is in regard to the postscript of Andy White's recent email: >P.S. -- as for the sop against realism, may I remind everyone that it was >Burbage, not Barker, who set the standard for such? Do I really need to >remind everyone of the standard the Bard himself set for his company? "Speech >the speech" was an injunction to avoid unrealistic behavior; trash realism, and >you trash the Bard's own. Andy, as I read this I could hear the sound of John Drakakis lacing up his soccer cleats, ready to stomp all over it, and you, so I want to jump lightly on you with rubber-soled slippers first. In your postscript you a) mistake Burbage for Prince Hamlet, and b) more seriously, confuse Hamlet's speech about the purpose of playing and rhetorical adequacy with "realism." Here's the first part of that speech from the Riverside text: Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounc'd it to you, trippingly on the tongue, but if you mouth it, as many of our players do, I had as live the town-crier spoke my lines. Nor do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus, but use all gently, for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as I may say, whirlwind of your passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness. O, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to totters, to very rags, to spleet the ears of the groundlings, who for the most part are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb shows and noise. I would have such a fellow whipt for o'erdoing Termagant, it out-Herods Herod, pray you avoid it. There is nothing in here, or what follows in the scene, that indicates a Shakespearean call for realism. It is entirely possible to talk about *bad acting* without bringing "realism" into the discussion: an actor could chew the walls in a Gilbert and Sullivan piece, and be justly lambasted for it by critics, without anyone thinking that the actor was violating some convention of realism. But perhaps Andy would respond that I have too conveniently quoted from Hamlet's speech; he might riposte with this excerpt: Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature: for any thing so o'erdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere the mirror up to nature: to show virtue her feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure. . . . "Nature" is the key term, here, that might let someone think Hamlet is talking about realism. But again the issue concerns decorum in acting: i.e., not overdoing the speech so as to imbalance the performance as a whole, and not allowing the clown to digress while "some necessary question of the play" is forgotten. While playing might hold a mirror up to nature, that does not mean that the image in the mirror is a realistic one. Far from it: Elizabethan playgoers delighted in "applying" play-fictions out to the society surrounding them, regardless of surface meanings or a playwright's possible intentions. Jonson famously complains about this in the "Letter to the Two Sisters," and--in a less famous letter--says "My noble lord, they deal not charitable, who are too witty in another man's works, and utter, sometimes, their own malicious meanings, under OUR words." Shakespeare is ordinarily (and in HAMLET almost obsessively) concerned with exposing the play AS a play, which is a dramatic strategy directly contrary to a realistic enterprise. Before I wind up, Professor Drakakis, if I have mis-anticipated your reaction to Andy's post, please forgive me. A good morning to all. Faithfully, --Brad Berens (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 8 Oct 1996 11:33:53 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0731 Gielgud & Beauty That "speak the..." speech always gets attributed to Shakespeare instead of his puppet. Wilde has already pointed out that all that mirror up to nature business is just more evidence of Hamlet's lunacy. Also Hamlet's ulterior realism motive is consistenly forgotten, viz to accurately reenact a crime in front of the criminal. As for Shakespeare, you'd think he'd have shaken a realism rap by incessantly peopling his plays with ghosts and witches and fairies and sorcerers and gods of the ancient world and implausible coincidences and historical inaccuracies and violations of time and space and grand convoluted poetry. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Tuesday, 8 Oct 1996 18:15:35 UTC+0100 Subject: SHK 7.0731 Gielgud & Beauty Dear Shakespereans, May I point out that, among the many reactions in a time of crisis, we can count fantasy, the absence and avoidance of realism? I tell my 17th-century students that drama and literature in general reflect all this different ways of reacting to the crisis of the period. That is why we find violence, philosophy, religion, satire, etc. in such a wide range and variety of plays and writings. If audiences "escaped" from the crude reality by seeing Gielgud play King Lear, I can perfectly understand that. It is a legitimate option. Besides, seeing a character suffer on stage can have a curious ef- fect on the spectator: he/she can feel empathy, solidarity, anger, bore- dom, etc. (Aristotelian catharsis?) I do not think there is a single way of reacting to _King Lear_ or that there should be one. For that matter, I do not think there is or there should be a single way of producing _King Lear_ Opinions, comments? Jesus. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 8 Oct 1996 14:22:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0731 Gielgud & Beauty On Gielgud's being incapable of serious political discourse: I remember reading (and I believe he recounts it himself with shame) that when war was declared, his first reaction was "My God! What will this do to the theatre?" (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Macdonald Date: Tuesday, 08 Oct 1996 17:12:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Hamlet to the Players Andrew Walker White, SHK 7.0731, appears to equate Hamlet's advice to the playes with "the standard the Bard himself set for his company." Can he really be so sure that Hamlet's classicizing direction, delivered, it seems to me, _de haut en bas_ and with considerable condescension, is really Shakespeare's own? On what basis has he decided this? --Ron Macdonald ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 08:42:54 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0734 Q: Shakespeare on Film (VCR) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0734. Wednesday, 9 October 1996. From: Benjamin Sher Date: Tuesday, 8 Oct 1996 10:54:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakespeare on Film (VCR) Dear SHAKSPEReans: A simple request: Where do you suggest I go to find the most reliable retail outlet for Shakespeare on film in general, either originally made for the cinema or theatrical performances captured on film? I have tried places like Blockbusters here in New Orleans with no success. Where could I find a good and reasonably priced professional VCR company that specializes in Shakespeare on film? I have in mind especially the Peter Brook production of Lear with Scofield and Richard III with Olivier. I have a feeling that many other Shakespeareans, especially students, may wish to know where to go for Shakespeare on VCR. By the way, I have always loved the Scofield Hamlet on Caedmon records (Royal Shakespeare Co.) made in the late 60's. I think that it remains the finest Hamlet there is. But all I have is the audio. Was it ever filmed? As an ensemble performance (judging by the audio), it remains, in my opinion, the supreme performance. Ironcially enough, the Ghost in that production was majestic and strangely both other-wordly and terrifying in its demand for vengeance. All done with simple sound effects. You can hear Scofield turning mad (and not merely acting mad) in his response to the Ghost's injunction. Why ironic? Because in the latest Mel Gibson version (which I highly admire for its epic interpretation, for making us aware of its Renaissance grandeur), Scofield plays an all-too-human, Ghost pleading for a son's protection and revenge,-- a major interpretative flaw, I think. Pity yes, but grandeur no. Thanks in advance. Benjamin ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 08:46:02 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0735 Re: The State of the Profession Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0735. Wednesday, 9 October 1996. From: Edward T Bonahue Date: Tuesday, 8 Oct 1996 15:03:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0730 Re: The State of the Profession I thank Gabriel Egan for explaining how he goes about "stuffing students with politics." He articulated in detail a model of teacher-student interaction that too often goes unreconsidered. I see now that describing myself as a "materialist" amounted to a kind of shorthand that could be misunderstood. Actually, I take all texts to be ideological expressions of material culture and harbor few illusions, I think, about the intrinsic values of "Literature" (this was Drakakis's capitalization, not mine). It makes an interesting commentary on the state of the profession that John Drakakis jumps the gun and thinks my vagueness on the question of dedication to materialist principals is an attempt to slip one by. In reply I must confess that although I certainly consider myself a good materialist (my work thus far has been grounded in early modern social history and the economic and demographic conditions necessary for class cohesion), he might well find me a bad--perhaps overly reconstructed--Marxist. I honestly cannot figure out how my question, confused as it was, amounted to a "parade of political prejudice." I was, forgive me, trying to accomplish precisely what Drakakis expects, "investigate" what materialism means with respect not only to critical practice but also to pedagogy. Drakakis already has the answers he needs; I do not. Egan was generous with his reply; Drakakis was not. Is Drakakis saying that we young people still studying Marx for the first time and trying to fight the good fight are not welcome in the fold? Ed Bonahue University of Florida ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 18:57:22 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0737 Various Re: Richard 3 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0737. Thursday, 10 October 1996. (1) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Wednesday, 09 Oct 96 07:53:56 EDT Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 5 Oct 1996 to 7 Oct 1996 (2) From: Date: Thursday, 10 Oct 1996 14:44:14 -0700 (MST) Subj: RIII Deformities (Jim Helsinger) (3) From: E. H. Pearlman Date: Wednesday, 09 Oct 1996 08:55:40 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0676 Re: Pennington, Player Kings; Just Like R&J (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Wednesday, 09 Oct 96 07:53:56 EDT Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 5 Oct 1996 to 7 Oct 1996 On RICHARD III -- Richard's 3HenryVI long psychologically revealing and self-lacerating speech: Yes, a chunk of it appears in the recent film version. If you want to see just how and why that speech has such theatrical poser, take a look at the equivalent passage from the first-printed version in the 1595 TRUE TRAGEDY OF RICHARD DUKE OF YORK, the "bad" quarto. Read as an early draft, it has a far more orderly skeletal framework. Rhetorically neat, painfully logical. Show the parallel versions to your writing students, to your actors, to your budding psychoanalysts; they'll be fascinated. If you are troubled about who may have been responsible for the writing of these alternative versions, consider that she MAY have been Shakespeare, or may have been a pirate (if you like such tales), or may have been mysterious unknowable others. The orthodox narrative offers pirates (but see my essay "If I mistake in those foundations which I build upon" ELR [1988]). Celebrating the joys of binocularity, Steve Urquartowitz, City College of New York (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Date: Thursday, 10 Oct 1996 14:44:14 -0700 (MST) Subject: RIII Deformities (Jim Helsinger) As Jim Helsinger is in the process of organizing materials, perception and applications of, for his Richard III production next Spring, he might want to just take a glimpse at Neil Simon's film, "The Goodbye Girl" with Marsha Mason and R. Dreyfuse. In this movie, R. Dreyfuse plays the part of an actor that is given a "challenging" interpretation of Richard III to work on. There are a couple of scenes of Dreyfuse attempting to bring his director's interpretation of Richard III to fruition. If I remember correctly, that particular Richard is to be portrayed as Gay (I'm not suggesting that is a deformity, by the way), he limps, has a lame arm and has a hunch back. As to Richard's need for love, compassion and friendship and the like, I'll have to think on that further. From that little vignette, though, you might be able to get some ideas Yours truly, Christine Jacobson (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. H. Pearlman Date: Wednesday, 09 Oct 1996 08:55:40 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0676 Re: Pennington, Player Kings; Just Like R&J I saw Al Pacino's "Looking for Richard." Here's what I learned. a) a good place to look for information about R3 is Cliff's Notes. b) actors know more about R3 than any scholar "at Columbia or Harvard" could possibly know. c) if you are looking for Shakespeareans to make fun of, a good place to look is Oxford. d) you don't have to know what all the words in R3 mean; it's sufficient just to get the feeling e) everyone should have millions of dollars to make a film celebrating themselves f) Aidan Quinn should be banned from acting g) the film should be retitled, "Glorifying Al." E. Pearlman ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 19:07:21 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0738 Re: Shakespeare on Film (VCR) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0738. Thursday, 10 October 1996. (1) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Wednesday, 9 Oct 1996 10:05:56 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0734 Q: Shakespeare on Film (VCR) (2) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 9 Oct 1996 14:58:36 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0734 Q: Shakespeare on Film (VCR) (3) From: Joanne Walen Date: Wednesday, 9 Oct 1996 18:19:29 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0734 Q: Shakespeare on Film (VCR) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Wednesday, 9 Oct 1996 10:05:56 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0734 Q: Shakespeare on Film (VCR) Benjamin Sher asks how to find a reliable retail outlet for Shakespeare on film in general. Two suggestions: The oustanding resource is Kenneth Rothwell's filmography *Shakespeare on Screen: An International Filmography and Videography* (New York: Neal-Schuman:1990), which not only lists the important items (and many obscure titles) with credits and other important datate, but also offers succint reviews and rental, sale and archival sources. The Indexes and appendices provide a wealth of information. Facets Multimedia is one of the retail sources that Rothwell lists: It can be reached at 800-331-6197. Based in Chicago, Facets sells as well as rents films. Though membership is not required, members benefit from free catalogs (which can also be purchased) and a number of free rentals. Sometimes Facets publishes a separate Shakespeare catalogue. This company is worlds apart from Blockbusters. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 9 Oct 1996 14:58:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0734 Q: Shakespeare on Film (VCR) There are no catalogs I can think of that would include the Brook "Lear" in their catalog, but I'll see if I have a few around. It may interest you that I once met the Russian poet Yevtushenko in NYC, and asked him about Vysotsky's Hamlet, which was supposed to be the standard of his day when he played at the Taganka. Yevtuschenko contemptuously replied "Vysotsky only played Vysotsky. Paul Scofield is the best Hamlet." As for Mel Gibson, it was as flat and derivative a film as I have ever seen, and I was greatly disappointed. Aside from resurrecting the utterly useless Freud/Jones interpretation of the Oedipal complex, a very lazy choice to my mind, I have to say that Gibson played a far better Hamlet in "Lethal Weapon". Would that he had been allowed to play the madness in that mode, instead of the one he adopted for the film. Best of luck finding your videos, Andy White (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Wednesday, 9 Oct 1996 18:19:29 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0734 Q: Shakespeare on Film (VCR) I too would be interested in finding such a company as you request. However, the offerings from The Shakespeare Catalog put out by the Writing Company(1-800-421-4246, also access@WritingCo.com or their web site: http://WritingCo.com/Shakespeare) have come as close as I have yet found to lots of Shakespeare videos, reasonably priced. The RIII (Olivier) that you seek is here for $14.95. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 20:33:19 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0739 Re: Gielgud & Beauty and Hamlet to the Players Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0739. Thursday, 10 October 1996. (1) From: Clark Bowlen Date: Wednesday, 09 Oct 1996 12:26:50 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0733 Re: Hamlet to the Players (2) From: John Drakakis Date: Wednesday, 9 Oct 1996 17:14:00 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0733 Re: Gielgud & Beauty and Hamlet to the Players (3) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 9 Oct 1996 14:51:36 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0733 Re: Gielgud & Beauty and Haml (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Bowlen Date: Wednesday, 09 Oct 1996 12:26:50 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0733 Re: Hamlet to the Players Until we can send camcorders back in time, we will never surely know Shakespeare's standard for good acting. In the meantime, Hamlet's advice to the players is as good as we can get with words. Their context argues that they describe what Shakespeare's audience would consider the standard. Hamlet is giving the advice because he wants the player's performance to be convincing to Claudius, else his test is out the window, and the play as a whole is, on one level at least, about very high-stakes, very convincing acting--Claudius acting innocent, Hamlet acting mad, R & G acting like friends, etc. What we can't know is what the Elizabethans saw in Hamlet's mirror--probably not what we see, at least entirely. In fact, since 'convincing' is the _sine qua non_ of acting, wouldn't Hamlet's words do for almost any age or culture? Only to the extent that we beleive in the commonality of human experience (certainly not a politically correct idea at the moment) can we argue that Hamlet's words meant for Shakespeare what they mean for us. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Wednesday, 9 Oct 1996 17:14:00 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0733 Re: Gielgud & Beauty and Hamlet to the Players Dear Brad Berens, You're forgiven. Soccer isn't my game. Best wishes John Drakakis (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 9 Oct 1996 14:51:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0733 Re: Gielgud & Beauty and Haml My apologies for not citing my sources more clearly; my reference to Burbage was not necessarily to Hamlet's speech, but to the contemporary observation that Burbage never stepped out of character, even when he was backstage in the 'tiring house'. As an actor trained in realism, this indicates to me that he was a serious realist. As for Hamlet's advice: It _is_ seriously meant, IMHO, and risks alienating the cast, depending on how the scene is played. Realism is exactly what he wants, he rejects the notion that you have to play the King like he was Tamburlaine or Faust. There is also the satire of the ur-Hamlet, in which a ghost is ridiculed for sounding more like a fish-wife, a street peddlar, than a real ghost. We can quibble about what constitutes realism, granted; My experience is that standards of realism are very difficult to define, and change from one era to the next, from one director to the next (e.g., Stanislavksi and Chekhov's spats on Seagull). What I was pointing out, and what has been missed, is that Granville Barker learned a great deal about realism at the feet of Shakespeare, and while we may find his take on it to be old-fashioned, it may have been a very necessary step to take, given the kind of fare the London theatre scene had at that time. As for the element of realism in Shakespeare's plays, can we admit that perhaps the soliloquoy was an accepted form of realistic acting, one that allowed the actor-as-character to commune with the audience in a more natural way than would otherwise be possible, given the other characters he/she has to deal with on stage? Andy White ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 20:38:25 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0740 Re: The State of the Profession Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0740. Thursday, 10 October 1996. From: Kate Thompson Date: Thursday, 10 Oct 1996 15:01:30 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0726 Re: The State of the Profession Re: William Proctor Williams' comment: >> Could it be that we (the faculty) are "not up to it"? << I think the most dangerous assumption an educator can make is that a student is "not up to" a particular subject or assignment. It is no wonder that many youth today hold a negative view of the world: we keep assuming that they are not capable without giving them a chance to try. One of the most demanding groups of students I have ever spoken to about Shakespeare in performance was a middle-school class. The median age in this group was about twelve. Their teacher had fought the school district to teach the class in the first place, because the school administration were determined that kids that age were incapable of understanding Shakespeare. It was thrilling to see that the students had exceeded the expectations of everyone involved. The kids were facing their first real intellectual/educational challenge. They were excited, and they were starved for information. On the spot, they created a production of "Macbeth" with modern political figures as the major characters. They asked good questions, and offered intelligent, well-thought-out insights. In retrospect, I think I learned more that day about young people than they did about Shakespeare. If more people would be willing to give their students a chance to work hard, and to provide them with the encouragement needed to do it, I think they'd be quite surprised at the results. Regards, Kate Thompson Toronto kthompson@symantec.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 09:42:24 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0741 Mr. Wm. Shakespeare and the Internet Update Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0741. Friday, 11 October 1996. From: Terry Gray Date: Thursday, 10 Oct 1996 18:12:38 -0700 Subject: Update to Shakespeare Web Page I would like to announce a significant update to the web site "Mr. William Shakespeare and the Internet" at http://www.palomar.edu/Library/shake.htm. In particular, the criticism section has been much expanded and improved, and many new links have been added to the other pages. The criticism page is at http://www.palomar.edu/Library/SHCRIT.HTM. I hope the Shakespeare community continues to find the site useful. If there are resources which should be included at the site but are not as yet, please write me off list at tgray@palomar.edu. Thank you. --Terry A. Gray ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 09:44:13 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0742 Shakespeare on Film -- Thanks! Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0742. Friday, 11 October 1996. From: Benjamin Sher Date: Friday, 11 Oct 1996 01:20:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakespeare on Film -- Thanks! My special thanks to Andy White, Bruce Kilman and Joanne Walen for their kind help in locating Shakespeare film outlets. Again, my deep gratitude. I am happy to hear that someone else thinks so highly of Scofield as Hamlet in the late 60's RSC performance on Caedmon records. Was it the audio tract of a filmed performance. Or is it only available in audio? A real treasure. Benjamin========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 08:33:29 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0743 Re: Scofield's Hamlet Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0743. Monday, 14 October 1996. (1) From: Tad Davis Date: Friday, 11 Oct 1996 11:35:50 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0742 Shakespeare on Film -- Thanks! (2) From: Tom Simone Date: Friday, 11 Oct 1996 11:32:27 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0742 Shakespeare on Film -- Thanks! (3) From: Jerry Bangham Date: Friday, 11 Oct 1996 21:07:23 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0742 Shakespeare on Film -- Thanks! (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Davis Date: Friday, 11 Oct 1996 11:35:50 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0742 Shakespeare on Film -- Thanks! I'd like to add my own note of appreciation to the accolades for Paul Scofield's performance as Hamlet, on Caedmon Records. It was available from the public library in Richmond, Virginia back in 1973, and my idea of a Friday-night good time was to ride my bicycle down to the library, check out Scofield's Hamlet, make a pot of coffee, and curl up in the living room next to the stereo for four hours. I must have listened to it at least ten times back then, and once or twice since. I think I even reviewed it for the student newspaper, though most of the clippings from those years have disappeared in one move or another. I could not imagine anyone giving a better performance. I have always loved Paul Scofield because of that recording. Tad Davis davist@isc.upenn.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Simone Date: Friday, 11 Oct 1996 11:32:27 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0742 Shakespeare on Film -- Thanks! The Scofield HAMLET and KING LEAR were studio audio recordings not connected with film production. Personally, I have found the Scofield audio LEAR to be the most compelling I have encountered. I once played the storm scene in a class at such a volume that my chairman came into the room to admonish me for my anit-social behavior. Still, a great rendering. Tom Simone University of Vermont (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Friday, 11 Oct 1996 21:07:23 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0742 Shakespeare on Film -- Thanks! >I am happy to hear that someone else thinks so highly of Scofield as Hamlet in >the late 60's RSC performance on Caedmon records. Was it the audio tract of a >filmed performance. Or is it only available in audio? A real treasure. I believe that all of the Caedmon series were specially produced by the company as audio productions. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 08:35:51 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0744 Performances and BBC Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0744. Monday, 14 October 1996. From: Bob Williams Date: Sunday, 13 Oct 1996 16:40:29 +0000 Subject: Performances and BBC In recent discussions of past and present performances, no one has mentioned the BBC series of the complete plays. One critic described the series as meritorious but boring. IMO this was unfair to some individual plays but as an all-over judgment seemed fair. Some of the plays I remember as remarkably odious and I associate Jonathan Miller with the worst excesses of eccentricity. This may be unfair and my memory may be very faulty for I see him mentioned frequently with praise or without censure. I raise this series from the realm of the forgotten because no one in the group has mentioned it and it seems to have vanished with surprising celerity. Bob Williams ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 08:38:06 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0745 Rime of the Ancient Mariner Dates Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0745. Monday, 14 October 1996. From: Ian H. Doescher Date: Sunday, 13 Oct 1996 21:10:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Rime of the Ancient Mariner Dates SHAKSPERians, Fuelled largely by the support many of you showed me with regards to "Rime of the Ancient Mariner," it is indeed headed performance. I thought I'd let you know that "Rime" will be performed October 17-20 at Nick Chapel (inside Trumbull College) at Yale University. Showtime is eight o'clock, and anyone who can make it is more than welcome. Ian Doescher ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 20:27:57 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0746 Re: Performances and BBC Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0746. Tuesday, 15 October 1996. (1) From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 14 Oct 1996 12:30:05 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0744 Performances and BBC (2) From: Scott Crozier Date: Tuesday, 15 Oct 1996 11:49:52 +1000 Subj: Re: Performances and BBC (3) From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, October 15, 1996 Subj: Miller and BBC Productions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 14 Oct 1996 12:30:05 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0744 Performances and BBC >In recent discussions of past and present performances, no one has mentioned >the BBC series of the complete plays. One critic described the series as >meritorious but boring. IMO this was unfair to some individual plays but as an >all-over judgment seemed fair. Some of the plays I remember as remarkably >odious and I associate Jonathan Miller with the worst excesses of eccentricity. >This may be unfair and my memory may be very faulty for I see him mentioned >frequently with praise or without censure. I raise this series from the realm >of the forgotten because no one in the group has mentioned it and it seems to >have vanished with surprising celerity. As someone who believes "meritorious" and "boring" to be mutually exclusive terms, I think eccentricity is not much of a sin, especially since some works that were once regarded as absurdly eccentric are now considered to be among history's finest Shakespeare productions. Jonathan Miller, I feel, is one of our age's great directing theorists, though like most directors, he achieves mixed results in practice. I had heard he directed some bombs for the BBC series, but the two I saw--_Shrew_ and _Othello_--were fascinating. John Cleese's stern puritan Petruchio was a revelation, I thought, as was Bob Hoskins bitter cockney Iago (I did feel, that all those ruffed collars kind of swallowed up the actors' heads). In this _Shrew_, the argument that Petruchio subjects himself to the same discomforts as Kate (an argument that is often trotted out in his defense) finally seems believable, as Cleese presents the primmest, most austere and anti-sensual Petruchio I could have imagined. It may indeed have been an eccentric reading, but it provided a new, valuable perspective on the play. The worst one that I saw was a wretched _Romeo and Juliet_ (not directed by Miller), in which Romeo and Mercutio were presented as rather sinister juvenile delinquents (particularly Mercutio, who literally frothed at the mouth when provoked) who were hounding poor, sensitive Tybalt into fighting them. The words of the text support this choice so little that one is constantly aware of the contortions the director is undergoing to make it fit. And in the end, all he has accomplished is that we spend three hours waiting for Romeo to hurry up and die. Best Wishes, David Skeele P.S. Oh, yes, the _All's Well_ they did was beautiful, I thought. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Tuesday, 15 Oct 1996 11:49:52 +1000 Subject: Re: Performances and BBC Bob Williams suggested the following: In recent discussions of past and present performances, no one has mentioned the BBC series of the complete plays. One critic described the series as meritorious but boring. IMO this was unfair to some individual plays but as an all-over judgment seemed fair. Some of the plays I remember as remarkably odious and I associate Jonathan Miller with the worst excesses of eccentricity. This may be unfair and my memory may be very faulty for I see him mentioned frequently with praise or without censure. I raise this series from the realm of the forgotten because no one in the group has mentioned it and it seems to have vanished with surprising celerity. I would disagree with his comments on Miller. IMO Miller's direction was what raised, Lear, Othello (and there maybe others) beyond the realm of the ordinary. The Macbeth was turgid nonsense from what I recall. I think the most important aspect of the series was that they raised some of theless well knownss to consciousness: Coriolanus, Cymbeline, Pericles, Titus Andronicus were riviting theatre in my mind. All this happened with limited rehearsal time, restricted budgets and a shooting schedule which allowed for little re-shooting. Regards, Head of English St. Michael's Grammar Director Horned Moon Productions (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, October 15, 19996 Subject: Miller and BBC Productions In an earlier incarnation, I wrote at length about Jonathan Miller's mastery of television as a medium for Shakespearean production in my dissertation, "Reading Shakespeare on Television" [University of Maryland at College Park, 1988], and in my essay, "Two *Lear*s for Television: An Exploration of Televisual Strategies." that was originally printed in *Literature-Film Quarterly* [14 (1986): 179-186] and that was reprinted in *Shakespeare on Television: An Anthology of Essays and Reviews* [Eds. James C. Bulman and H. R. Coursen. Hanover, NH: UP of New England, 1988] and in the Appendix to James P. Lusardi's and June Schlueter's *Reading Shakespeare in Performance: King Lear* [Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1990]. My interest was principally in Miller's use of the medium from a theoretical perspecive. For anyone who might be interested, this essay is available on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: Cook, Hardy M. "Two *Lear*'s for Television: An Exploration of Televisual Strategies." *Literature/Film Quarterly*. 14 (1986): 179-186. Reprinted in Bulman and Coursen *Shakespeare and Television: An Anthology of Essays and Reviews*, 122-129. (TWOLEARS FOR_TV) To retrieve "Two *Lear*s for Television: An Exploration of Televisual Strategies." (TWOLEARS FOR_TV) from the SHAKSPER Fileserver, send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET TWOLEARS FOR_TV". ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 20:31:25 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0747 Notice: RENAISSANCE FORUM Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0747. Tuesday, 15 October 1996. From: Robin Headlam Wells Date: Tuesday, 15 Oct 1996 14:06:23 +0100 (BST) Subject: Notice: RENAISSANCE FORUM RENAISSANCE FORUM The editors are pleased to announce the latest issue of *Renaissance Forum*. The journal is available from http://www.hull.ac.uk/Hull/EL_Web/renforum/index.html In volume 1, no. 2 Richard Levin responds to Martin Coyle's article in the first issue, Steven Marx examines the intersection of *The Tempest*, *Prospero's Books* and the Book of Genesis, R. G. Siemens looks at the history of the de la Pole family and Medwall's *Fulgens and Lucres* and Lisa Hopkins offers a reading of Middleton's *Women Beware Women*. The journal also contains reviews by J. C. Davis, David Hale, Martin Leach, Graham Parry and Daniel Woolf of books by Lucy Gent, Alastair MacLachlan, Graham Parry, Paola Pugliatti and Jonathan Sawday. The editors welcome articles on the history and literature of the English Early Modern period, and reasoned responses to articles already published in *Renaissance Forum*. Potential reviewers should send a short cv to the technical editor at a.m.butler@english.hull.ac.uk If you wish to be removed from the Renforum electronic information list send a message consisting of the word unsubscribe to renforum-request@hull.ac.uk Robin Headlam Wells Glenn Burgess ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:05:25 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0748 Re: Boydell Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0748. Wednesday, 16 October 1996. From: Paul Nelsen Date: Wednesday, 16 Oct 1996 09:32:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Boydell Daniel Traister will find detailed background on Josiah Boydell's Shakespeare Gallery in Winifred H. Friedman's BOYDELL'S SHAKESPEARE GALLERY, (New York, 1976). He will also find some useful bits in Brian Vickers' SHAKESPEARE: THE CRITICAL HERITAGE, Volume 6 1774-1801 (London and Boston, 1981) and Gary Taylor's REINVENTING SHAKESPEARE (New York, 1989). Boydell published in 1805 a set of one-hundred plates, titled BOYDELL SHAKESPEARE GALLERY, drawn from paintings and sculpture featured in his gallery. I own a four volume version -- "reproduce[d] with a few changes" -- published by Gebbie & Barrie of London later in that century under the full title: THE GALLERY OF ILLUSTRATIONS FOR SHAKESPEARE'S DRAMATIC WORKS ORIGINALLY PROJECTED AND PUBLISHED BY JOHN BOYDELL REDUCED AND RE-ENGRAVED BY THE HELIOTYPE PROCESS WITH SELECTIONS FROM THE TEXT. Artists represented include Sir Joshua Reynolds, Benjamin West, Fuseli, Romney, Northcote, Smirke, and others. Hope this helps. Paul Nelsen Marlboro College ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:09:13 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0749 Subbing in Actors for a Longer Run Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0749. Wednesday, 16 October 1996. From: Sam Pilo Date: Wednesday, 16 Oct 1996 11:37:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Subbing in Actors for a Longer Run I am currently working on an interesting project and hope some of you can help me build a list. Next summer at the Actors Theatre Playhouse in southern VT and NH we are going to try an experiment in community theater. About fifteen years ago we did a production of J.B. Priestley's AN INSPECTOR CALLS. Several weeks into a four week run, we found ourselves with a very big hit, and wanted to extend the run. One of the actors could not commit, so we replaced him and continued on. Several weeks later, another actor had to leave, and once again we replaced her. The show went on for almost three months this way. Next summer we would like to try this as a planned experiment. The thought was to use INSPECTOR CALLS again, because the play is so condusive to this type of work.....ie, good parts that many actors would like to take on....fairly simple to stage.....costumes being the only production aspect that requires change. Someone brought up THE LITTLE FOXES as another possibility. Also the mention of Shakespeare........ So, the idea came to present it to the various theater mailing lists on the Net..... Any suggestions??????? Comments?????? Similiar Experiences????? Thanking you in advance...... Sam at the Actors Theatre Playhouse ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:11:44 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0750 Re: Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0750. Wednesday, 16 October 1996. From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Wednesday, 16 Oct 1996 12:07:22 -0400 Subject: Politics Gabriel Egan hardly needs me to defend him, but he is making a number of very serious points which deserve attention. David Evett's distinction between 'entertainment' and politics is entirely factitious and such stances are, as they have always been, deeply 'political'. Can anyone nominate any work of literature that didn't, at its inception, engage with 'politics' to some degree? Can they point to any subsequent realisation or 'reading' of a work of literature, in any form, that isn't, to some extent, also involved in 'politics? We can't step outside society. The invaluable skill that students of literature bring to our encounters with it -the close analysis of texts- is exactly the one that seems to be in short supply in departments of economics and law these days. Politics is far too important to be left to them. Terence Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:13:52 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0751 Re: Granville-Barker Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0751. Wednesday, 16 October 1996. From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Wednesday, 16 Oct 1996 12:10:48 -0400 Subject: Granville-Barker Can we get back to the famous production of King Lear, directed by Granville-Barker, and starring John Gielgud, which ran at the Old Vic Theatre in London from April 15th to May 25th,1940? Most people would accept that the play has something to do with the division of a state and the difficulties that ensue from a consequent loss of integrity. In 1940, the material events of the period from April 15th to May 25th mark them as probably the most crucial weeks of recent British history. It's no exaggeration to say that the integrity of the state was fundamentally threatened at this time. For instance: On April 15th (the day the production opened), British and Allied troops landed in occupied Norway (at Narvik) in one of the most disastrous adventures of the war: its failure led directly to the resignation of the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. On May 9th German troops entered Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg. On May 10th Chamberlain resigned and Winston Churchill became Prime Minister. On May 14th the Allies lost fifty planes and the Germans broke through at Sedan. Many believed their advance would continue through to London. On May 21st Arras and Amiens fell On May 23rd Boulogne fell, Calais was besieged. On May 25th (the day the production closed) German troops were only twenty-five miles from the coast of Kent. The first German bombs fell on British soil and the magazine Picture Post excitedly announced 'German parachutists must be expected any moment from now on.' This is the background against which Gielgud's comment on that production '. . . It seemed to take our minds off the awful things that were happening in France.' should be placed. Sentimental old baggage that I am (as Goethe would say), words like 'politics','engagement', 'opportunity' and 'missed' float into my mind. Terence Hawkes P.S. In 1940, Granville-Barker's home was in Paris. The city fell to the Germans in June of that year. He narrowly managed to escape to the United States where he ended up -poor chap- slaving for the British Council. God is not mocked. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:28:02 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0752 My Internet Demon Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0752. Wednesday, 16 October 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wendesday, 16 October 1996 Subject: My Internet Demon Dear SHAKSPEReans, It appears that my internet demon is alive and well and very hungry as it eats messages forwarded to me. I am having lots of people, including the chair of the Computer Science Department, lending me a hand at trying to locate and kill the monster. Here is what happens. Messages sent to the list SHAKSPER@ws.BowieState.edu appear to be received properly. Once the message arrives, LISTSERV sends a message that the post has been received and that it is being forwarded to the editor. Here's the problem. For some reason, significant numbers of these messages are not arriving at HMCook@boe00.minc.umd.edu -- the account I use to edit the SHAKSPER digests. I am having people looking to see if the problem is with the Unix SendMail configuration file, but I am also exploring the possiblity that the problem is with the University's network setup. For now, my mailbox is clear. If you have not seen a posting for the list, I have not received it -- the hungry demon has devoured it. Again, if I'm going to reject a posting -- something I very seldom do -- I will write you to tell you my reasons. So if you submit and do not see your posting please send it directly to me at HMCook@boe00.minc.umd.edu or try the list address again. I am very sorry and hope that soon someone will figure out the problem and set it right, but resolving internal network problems and setting up the Unix mail configuration file are skills that are simply beyond me. [was line of equality signs; deleted because clashes with digest separator. GIE] Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 05:52:32 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: test from boe this is a test from boe to the list 5:54 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:43:55 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0753 Hardy's Faux Pas Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0753. Thursday, 17 October 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, 17 October 1996 Subject: Hardy's Faux Pas Dear SHAKSPEReans, It's been a long time, but I did it again. I committed the list owner's greatest faux pas and sent a test message to the entire list by accident. Please ignore; afterall it was befoe 6:00 am and I had only had my second cup of coffee. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 20:37:52 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0754 Re: Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0754. Thursday, 17 October 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 17 Oct 1996 09:37:00 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0750 Re: Politics e(2) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Thursday, 17 Oct 1996 12:41:31 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0750 Re: Politics (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 17 Oct 1996 09:37:00 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0750 Re: Politics Terence Hawkes asks: > Can anyone nominate any work of >literature that didn't, at its inception, engage with 'politics' to some >degree? Can they point to any subsequent realisation or 'reading' of a work of >literature, in any form, that isn't, to some extent, also involved in >'politics? And he replies to his question: "We can't step outside society." What we need here is a series of definitions. What are "politics" or what is "politics"? What is the meaning of "at its inception"? And how does "any work of literature . . . engage with 'politics'"? These are genuine questions, and I will not presume to provide any answers. But I would like to know. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Thursday, 17 Oct 1996 12:41:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0750 Re: Politics Reluctant though I am to tiptoe into this minefield, Terence Hawkes' challenge seems to me one worth thinking about. He writes: "Can anyone nominate any work of literature that didn't, at its inception, engage with 'politics' to some degree?" The truth he would assert in this, perhaps rhetorical, question is either a truism or needs very careful handling (like a rabid dog). On the one hand, it is indisputably true that human intercourse is always interinvolved with questions of human sociality, even in the mode of radical denial, say by desert hermits and the like. Aristotle insisted, and Hawkes would presumably agree, that politics is one of the master discourses of human activity and subsumes other social discourses into it "to some degree". (But Aristotle also insisted that what he called "metaphysics" was an equally valid master discourse). All our language is learned in a social, and hence political, environment we cannot altogether slough off. To that extent Hawkes' challenge rests on a truism. It is important to repeat truisms now and then because we sometimes forget them. But by the same token, and with just as much truth, one could demand "Can anyone nominate any work of literature that didn't, at its inception, engage with 'biology' to some degree?" There are, pace Hawkes, some facts about language that are not themselves political, though the mode and timing of their framing or assertion may have political implications (but I think that's a different story). The fact that English uses phonemic stress whereas French does not, or that languages that shift stress routinely onto first syllables tend to develop alliterative meters, or even that all known human societies practise the composition and exchange of narratives: these are not in any useful sense "political" facts by themselves. But they are facts relevant, and even necessary, to the study of poetry or, if you prefer, "literature". And one can get quite far indeed with such facts before running full tilt into "politics." The difficulty concerns how and where to locate the relevance of "politics" to a particular work. For some works, it is neccessary to rebuild a "political context" almost entirely from scratch, and then point to the work and say: "See how much of the truth has been left out!" This I sometimes find a rather unhelpful tactic, as the reconstruction of the context may be done in contentious and debatable ways, at which point I find myself rematerializing in a Department of History, or perhaps Economics and feel like Doctor Who on Skaro. To take a well-known example: the poem "O Westron Wind", a pungent little lyric with a long history of its own in poetry and music. One could, I suppose, with great care, recover the moment of its composition (though this may be impossible), trace its history through MSS and printings, through Taverner's music, and into its use as an exemplary text of a certain kind of Callimichan small-poem aesthetic in this century, leading up to this email message. To do so would "engage with politics to some degree." But one would also want, I think, to pay attention to the impulse of the poem to bracket such an endeavour and to turn attention elsewhere, to recognise that weariness and longing are also a part of the landscape of human being, possibly even of the landscape of politics. The insistence on integrating poetry into politics often turns out to be a covert plea for the -reduction- of poetry to (someone's) politics, and it is this, I think, that I want to be wary of. And here poor old Granville-Barker and his "Lear" become relevant. It is absolutely true that that production took place at a time of unprecedented social, political and military crisis in English history. What is not clear to me is that the production, because it didnt somehow directly inveigh against Germany, or exhort its audience to earnest war effort, or revolutionary action, or putting up air-raid shelters, or contemplating the Dialectic, or whatever, did nothing useful to further the ability of the English polity to resist Nazi incursion. Weariness and longing, and many other emotions, are available in "King Lear" and perhaps their confrontation in that play, with its evocation of the coast of Kent, and even its championing of a foreign invasion, were more rather than less effective than some other means would have been. That an aged actor should choose to speak of "taking our minds off it" fifty years later is neither here nor there. He has his idioms and perhaps understands better than we can what such a moment of relief might have meant then. Politics is general; one cannot simply conjure it away. But its presence is also variable and it presents itself not just "in some degree" but in various degrees and with various inflections, sometimes in the tiniest of whispers, wishing -- justifiably -- for its own absence. Cheers, Tom ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 20:58:51 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0755 Costumes in Antony and Cleopatra Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0755. Thursday, 17 October 1996. From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Thursday, 17 Oct 1996 07:02:57 -0800 Subject: Costumes in Antony and Cleopatra Dear Friends and Colleagues, I write this email on behalf of Marvin Rosenberg, who is working these days on THE MASKS OF ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA. Professor Rosenberg's question to SHAKSPER is the following: what are current opinions about the costumes in the play on Shakespeare's stage? We know, for example, that in JULIUS CAESAR the actors wore hats and doublets and carried rapiers, but we also have that peculiar illustration of TITUS ANDRONICUS (commonly attributed to Peacham) in which Titus is dressed as an ancient Roman. Do the members of SHAKSPER think that the players were in contemporary dress in A&C? If not, then how might Roman-ness and Egyptian-ness have been conveyed? Of course, there can be no definitive answer to this question, as with most questions, but what is of interest to Professor Rosenberg is the range of current opinion. Best wishes to all, Brad Berens ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 21:04:24 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0756 Re: Performances and BBC Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0756. Thursday, 17 October 1996. (1) From: John W. Mahon Date: Thursday, 17 Oct 96 16:32:25 EST Subj: SHK 7.0746 Re: Performances and BBC (2) From: Charles Ross Date: Thursday, 17 Oct 1996 16:20:15 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0746 Re: Performances and BBC (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John W. Mahon Date: Thursday, 17 Oct 96 16:32:25 EST Subject: SHK 7.0746 Re: Performances and BBC Thursday, 17 October Dear SHAKSPER, With regard to the discussion of the BBC -TV Shakespeare series, watch for the forthcoming Summer issue of THE SHAKESPEARE NEWSLETTER, which includes a feature article on the BBC series by John Wilders. Wilders served as literary consultant to the BBC during the taping of the plays and also wrote brief critical introductions to each play as it was published. His introductions have been published together as NEW PREFACES TO SHAKESPEARE (Oxford and New York: Blackwell, 1988). More recently, Professor Wilders edited ANTONY & CLEOPATRA for the new Arden Three series. Regards, John W. Mahon Iona College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Ross Date: Thursday, 17 Oct 1996 16:20:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0746 Re: Performances and BBC Shouldn't we mention the brilliant Derek Jacobi Richard II among the triumphs of the BBC series? Biggest disappointments for me were Falstaff in 1 Henry IV and As You Like It. Also excellent: Henry VIII. Charles Ross Purdue Univ.========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:00:07 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0757 Re: Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0757. Monday, 21 October 1996. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 18 Oct 96 20:30:25 BST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0754 Re: Politics (2) From: David Evett Date: Friday, 18 Oct 96 17:58:58 EST Subj: Re: Politics (3) From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 19 Oct 1996 20:11:22 -0400 Subj: Turtle and Politics (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 18 Oct 96 20:30:25 BST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0754 Re: Politics Thomas Bishop writes >The fact that English uses phonemic stress whereas >French does not, or that languages that shift stress >routinely onto first syllables tend to develop alliterative >meters, or even that all known human societies practise >the composition and exchange of narratives: these are >not in any useful sense "political" facts by themselves. These are only 'facts' within a framework of interest in such features. Their status as 'facts' relies upon an acceptance of the independent validity of such concepts as 'phoneme', 'syllable', and 'alliteration'. >But they are facts relevant, and even necessary, to the study of >poetry or, if you prefer, "literature". And one can get quite far indeed with >such facts before running full tilt into "politics." My theory class today practiced using Vladimir Propp's 31 'functions' as a way of describing a narrative. Propp isn't the slightest bit interested in the 'facts' that Thomas Bishop says are 'relevant, and even necessary, to the study of poetry or, if you prefer, "literature"'. My students wanted to know about the academic milieu that valued the Propp approach, which they found to be very unlike the way they had previously been trained to analyse text. Their 'facts' (much like Bishop's) were not Propp's, but they had heard of structuralism and were aware that it was historically located as a practice with English studies. Hence it's on the syllabus of the theory course. There's no point giving one's own set of 'facts' about text and asserting that these are un-political. What happens to different models of textuality, and why different models are valued at different times, is the deeply political matter that students must be able to address. Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 18 Oct 96 17:58:58 EST Subject: Re: Politics I confess that Terence Hawkes would be right to call my "distinction" between "entertainment" and "politics" factitious, if indeed it were mine, which it is not. In the first place, I was piggy-backing on Frank Whigham (though I don't mean to pass on the fault to him, either). In the second, the rest of my posting went on to call attention to a highly politicizable and very entertaining piece of stage business that occurred in a not very overtly political place--that is, in that temple of haut bourgeois high cultural respectability, the Festival Theatre in Stratford, Ontario, and thus explicitly ("entertainment" that "happened to condense and focus a lot of socio-economic reality") denied any ineluctable "distinction"; if I were guilty of anything, it would be self-contradiction. But I think it is not factitious to talk about a range of critical emphasis--that is, within spoken or written discourse about drama, as distinct from the full complexity of spectators' or readers' responses to drama--between something like undiluted "politics" at one end and something like undiluted "entertainment" at the other. And, with an eye on that range, to say (seconding Tom Bishop's earlier rejoinder to Hawkes) that concentrating exclusively on politics (which is what Gabriel Egan's remark about "filling students up with politics" strongly implies) leaves stuff out. I used the word "fun"--responding, I think, to something Gradgrindish and hectoring in Egan's characteristic assumption of moral and epistemological and pedagogical superiority. That is, given the truth that all dramatic texts themselves (_Twelfth Night_, for instance), and all the details of their realization on stage or film, and the reactions of all their readers and audiences, are inevitably implicated in, and implicate, what Tom calls "questions of human sociality"--given that truth, will there therefore be no more cakes and ale? To put it another way, it has seemed to me that the discourse of cultural materialism, much of which I have found illuminating, even tonic, and which has altered my reading and teaching and writing, has not dealt very effectively--I think because it can't--with the _dulce_ part of the old Horatian formula, with the questions about how particular features of texts and stage practices give readers and spectators pleasure. (Whence, even, the undoubted pleasure that arises from pulling the smiler's cloak aside and finding the knife?) I agree with Tom that approaches to these questions need to pass through the discourses of biology, psychology, maybe even metaphysics. I think they are important to students in themselves. They ought to be important to Gabriel Egan's students because they bear on the determination of just how and how well particular productions produce their political effects. At this stage in my own history I can't deny that the wriggle of pleasure I felt when I first read Hamlet's "Well said, old mole! Canst work i'th'earth so fast? A worthy pioner" had in it the frisson that followed some not-yet- conscious recognition of the ways the speech undermines (wink) patriarchy. But also the frisson provoked by the image of the ghost plunging through earth and stone, by the change in dictional and syntactic register, by the alliteration of "well" and "said," "old" and "mole", by an American's encounter with "pioneer" in a new and surprising usage (including perhaps a not-yet-conscious recognition that its military associations pick up the Ghost's history and armor), maybe even by some blurred recollection of _The Wind in the Willows_. I don't know that any merely political analysis of _Hamlet_ can effectively deal with the play's wild and whirling comedy. Maybe, to be sure, I am just ignorant, and there are things out there I ought to read. If so, I hope Mssrs. Drakakis and Egan and Hawkes will direct me to them. Ready to set it down, Dave Evett (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 19 Oct 1996 20:11:22 -0400 Subject: Turtle and Politics I, like Bill Godshalk, am confused by the "all-politics" thing. [Unlike him, I suspect, I am *always* confused by the "all-politics" thing.] I am not a political theorist in any way, which is probably why I lean more towards the previous post about some things simply not being worth the time and effort to discover the undergarments of politics beneath the frills and furbelows of theme and universality. However, I would like to share this story with the list, having already shared it with Bill. [He, btw, says that he knows that everything is *not* political; it's *sexual*, he says, so there.] A renowned astrophysicist was doing a community lecture. He was asked what held the earth up in space, and he gave a complete picture of orbits space/time gravity, etc. From the back of the room there was a disturbance, and he finally called on a little old lady who was waving her umbrella around violently. "Yes, madam?" "Rubbish! " "I beg your pardon?" "Rubbish! Everything you said was rubbish! The earth is held up in space by a giant turtle!" He smiled indulgently. "But madam, in that case, on what does the turtle rest?" "Ha! You can't fool me, young man! It's turtles all the way down!" That's what always comes to my mind when we get the "all-politics" postings. Dale Lyles <---now waiting patiently to hear what Mr. Hawkes actually means Newnan Community Theatre Company ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:08:03 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0757 Re: Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0757. Monday, 21 October 1996. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 18 Oct 96 20:30:25 BST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0754 Re: Politics (2) From: David Evett Date: Friday, 18 Oct 96 17:58:58 EST Subj: Re: Politics (3) From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 19 Oct 1996 20:11:22 -0400 Subj: Turtle and Politics (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 18 Oct 96 20:30:25 BST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0754 Re: Politics Thomas Bishop writes >The fact that English uses phonemic stress whereas >French does not, or that languages that shift stress >routinely onto first syllables tend to develop alliterative >meters, or even that all known human societies practise >the composition and exchange of narratives: these are >not in any useful sense "political" facts by themselves. These are only 'facts' within a framework of interest in such features. Their status as 'facts' relies upon an acceptance of the independent validity of such concepts as 'phoneme', 'syllable', and 'alliteration'. >But they are facts relevant, and even necessary, to the study of >poetry or, if you prefer, "literature". And one can get quite far indeed with >such facts before running full tilt into "politics." My theory class today practiced using Vladimir Propp's 31 'functions' as a way of describing a narrative. Propp isn't the slightest bit interested in the 'facts' that Thomas Bishop says are 'relevant, and even necessary, to the study of poetry or, if you prefer, "literature"'. My students wanted to know about the academic milieu that valued the Propp approach, which they found to be very unlike the way they had previously been trained to analyse text. Their 'facts' (much like Bishop's) were not Propp's, but they had heard of structuralism and were aware that it was historically located as a practice with English studies. Hence it's on the syllabus of the theory course. There's no point giving one's own set of 'facts' about text and asserting that these are un-political. What happens to different models of textuality, and why different models are valued at different times, is the deeply political matter that students must be able to address. Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 18 Oct 96 17:58:58 EST Subject: Re: Politics I confess that Terence Hawkes would be right to call my "distinction" between "entertainment" and "politics" factitious, if indeed it were mine, which it is not. In the first place, I was piggy-backing on Frank Whigham (though I don't mean to pass on the fault to him, either). In the second, the rest of my posting went on to call attention to a highly politicizable and very entertaining piece of stage business that occurred in a not very overtly political place--that is, in that temple of haut bourgeois high cultural respectability, the Festival Theatre in Stratford, Ontario, and thus explicitly ("entertainment" that "happened to condense and focus a lot of socio-economic reality") denied any ineluctable "distinction"; if I were guilty of anything, it would be self-contradiction. But I think it is not factitious to talk about a range of critical emphasis--that is, within spoken or written discourse about drama, as distinct from the full complexity of spectators' or readers' responses to drama--between something like undiluted "politics" at one end and something like undiluted "entertainment" at the other. And, with an eye on that range, to say (seconding Tom Bishop's earlier rejoinder to Hawkes) that concentrating exclusively on politics (which is what Gabriel Egan's remark about "filling students up with politics" strongly implies) leaves stuff out. I used the word "fun"--responding, I think, to something Gradgrindish and hectoring in Egan's characteristic assumption of moral and epistemological and pedagogical superiority. That is, given the truth that all dramatic texts themselves (_Twelfth Night_, for instance), and all the details of their realization on stage or film, and the reactions of all their readers and audiences, are inevitably implicated in, and implicate, what Tom calls "questions of human sociality"--given that truth, will there therefore be no more cakes and ale? To put it another way, it has seemed to me that the discourse of cultural materialism, much of which I have found illuminating, even tonic, and which has altered my reading and teaching and writing, has not dealt very effectively--I think because it can't--with the _dulce_ part of the old Horatian formula, with the questions about how particular features of texts and stage practices give readers and spectators pleasure. (Whence, even, the undoubted pleasure that arises from pulling the smiler's cloak aside and finding the knife?) I agree with Tom that approaches to these questions need to pass through the discourses of biology, psychology, maybe even metaphysics. I think they are important to students in themselves. They ought to be important to Gabriel Egan's students because they bear on the determination of just how and how well particular productions produce their political effects. At this stage in my own history I can't deny that the wriggle of pleasure I felt when I first read Hamlet's "Well said, old mole! Canst work i'th'earth so fast? A worthy pioner" had in it the frisson that followed some not-yet- conscious recognition of the ways the speech undermines (wink) patriarchy. But also the frisson provoked by the image of the ghost plunging through earth and stone, by the change in dictional and syntactic register, by the alliteration of "well" and "said," "old" and "mole", by an American's encounter with "pioneer" in a new and surprising usage (including perhaps a not-yet-conscious recognition that its military associations pick up the Ghost's history and armor), maybe even by some blurred recollection of _The Wind in the Willows_. I don't know that any merely political analysis of _Hamlet_ can effectively deal with the play's wild and whirling comedy. Maybe, to be sure, I am just ignorant, and there are things out there I ought to read. If so, I hope Mssrs. Drakakis and Egan and Hawkes will direct me to them. Ready to set it down, Dave Evett (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 19 Oct 1996 20:11:22 -0400 Subject: Turtle and Politics I, like Bill Godshalk, am confused by the "all-politics" thing. [Unlike him, I suspect, I am *always* confused by the "all-politics" thing.] I am not a political theorist in any way, which is probably why I lean more towards the previous post about some things simply not being worth the time and effort to discover the undergarments of politics beneath the frills and furbelows of theme and universality. However, I would like to share this story with the list, having already shared it with Bill. [He, btw, says that he knows that everything is *not* political; it's *sexual*, he says, so there.] A renowned astrophysicist was doing a community lecture. He was asked what held the earth up in space, and he gave a complete picture of orbits space/time gravity, etc. From the back of the room there was a disturbance, and he finally called on a little old lady who was waving her umbrella around violently. "Yes, madam?" "Rubbish! " "I beg your pardon?" "Rubbish! Everything you said was rubbish! The earth is held up in space by a giant turtle!" He smiled indulgently. "But madam, in that case, on what does the turtle rest?" "Ha! You can't fool me, young man! It's turtles all the way down!" That's what always comes to my mind when we get the "all-politics" postings. Dale Lyles <---now waiting patiently to hear what Mr. Hawkes actually means Newnan Community Theatre Company ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:13:51 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0758 Re: Performances and BBC Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0758. Tuesday, 22 October 1996. From: Juliet A. Youngren Date: Thursday, 17 Oct 1996 21:06:38 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0756 Re: Performances and BBC Timidly emerging from a long lurkerdom to say ... This series might be better remembered and more often discussed if those of us who are not academics had access to it. At least in the United States, videotapes of the BBC Shakespeare Plays series are not readily available. About 7 or 8 of the better-known plays can be found at good public libraries, but the more obscure ones (which are by general report the better productions, for the most part) are impossible to find. If anyone knows where a non-academic could find some of these videos, I'd be grateful for the information; I'd love to see performances of some of the plays I've only read. J. Youngren ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:59:55 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0759 Sixteenth Century Studies Conference Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0759. Tuesday, 22 October 1996. From: Judith M. Craig Date: Friday, 18 Oct 1996 06:41:06 -0400 Subject: Florence Amit This posting is just to let faithful readers know that Flo is alive and well and full of hate in West Texas. See the REAL thing at the Sixteenth Century Studies Conference in St. Louis Saturday, October 26 at 8:30 am for a SHOWDOWN AT HIGH NOON! Its a real circus. Gary Taylor couldn't beat it--even if he is black. Florence Amit ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 12:24:47 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody; Pronounciation; Roles Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0760. Tuesday, 22 October 1996. (1) From: Shannon Murray Date: Friday, 18 Oct 1996 08:55:10 -0400 (AST) Subj: Re: Hamlet Parody (2) From: John Gouws Date: Sunday, 20 Oct 1996 12:27:33 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subj: [Q: Pronounciation] (3) From: Michael Kremer Date: Monday, 21 Oct 1996 22:50:47 -0700 Subj: Who originated the roles (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shannon Murray Date: Friday, 18 Oct 1996 08:55:10 -0400 (AST) Subject: Re: Hamlet Parody I need your help; I've recommended to our University Theatre Society that they try a Twelve-Minute Hamlet that I once saw (both in performance and in print). They have been persuaded and now for the life of me I can't put my hands on it. Perhaps I have the wrong title? Can anyone help with a location for this funny reduced version of the play? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Gouws Date: Sunday, 20 Oct 1996 12:27:33 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: [Q: Pronounciation] I heard recently of recordings of Shakespeare plays in reconstructed period pronunciation. Are these readily available, and where? Best wishes. John (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Kremer Date: Monday, 21 Oct 1996 22:50:47 -0700 Subject: Who originated the roles Is there a source which gives documentary evidence about which actors originated the primary roles in each of Shakespeare's plays? I am particularly interested in who originated the role of Falstaff. The only comment I have been able to find attributes the role to Thomas Pope. Thanks, Mike Kremer mkremer@cyberg8t.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 07:57:32 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0761 New *Rom.* Film Web Site Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0761. Wednesday, 23 October 1996. From: Jung Jimmy Date: Monday, 21 Oct 1996 10:30am Subject: http://www.romeoandjuliet.com/author/insult.html I found this promotional item while surfing: http://www.romeoandjuliet.com/author/insult.html I could prove a bit of a challenge for crotchety old English profs unfamiliar with bodacious, tubular, or the Smashing Pumpkins. and what it promises for the film? should we worry? Personally it sounds awesome to me (totally!!) like woe, jimmy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 08:05:19 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0762 Re: Performances and BBC Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0762. Wednesday, 23 October 1996. (1) From: Steve Sohmer Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 11:43:31 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0758 Re: Performances and BBC (2) From: Ed Peschko Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 12:08:12 -0600 (MDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0758 Re: Performances and BBC (3) From: Juul Muller Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 23:44:51 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0758 Re: Performances and BBC (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 11:43:31 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0758 Re: Performances and BBC The complete library of the BBC Shakespeare plays is available from your local PBS affiliate. If you're a member, the cost for the 38 tapes is about $2500 as I remember. Hope this helps. Steve (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Peschko Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 12:08:12 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0758 Re: Performances and BBC > This series might be better remembered and more often discussed if those of us > who are not academics had access to it. At least in the United States, > videotapes of the BBC Shakespeare Plays series are not readily available. > About 7 or 8 of the better-known plays can be found at good public libraries, > but the more obscure ones (which are by general report the better productions, > for the most part) are impossible to find. If anyone knows where a > non-academic could find some of these videos, I'd be grateful for the > information; I'd love to see performances of some of the plays I've only read. I agree heartily! (always wanted to use that word in a sentence...) I was even considering at one point, getting a NTSC/PAL videocassette player for them, because the BBC only sells them in PAL. ( But I couldn't find one that was stereo, let alone outputted to a NTSC TV ) Ah well. If anybody had information on how to get either: NTSC ('american' video cassette tape format) laserdisc dvd versions of these plays, I'd appreciate it. Or alternatively, a NTSC/PAL stereo video cassette player which outputs in NTSC.. After all -- the rest of the world uses PAL, we use NTSC.. might open my horizons a bit. Ed (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juul Muller Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 23:44:51 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0758 Re: Performances and BBC Juliet Youngren wants to know where to get Shakespeare videos and complains that they are hard to find in the United States. I am very willing to help, but would like to take the opportunity to enquire if Americans realise quite how USA-oriented many of the discussions on this list are (especially about the profession)? The BBC, of course, is the best place to buy BBC videos. They are based in London (The BBC Shop, off Oxford Street). The Royal Shakespeare Company also offers videos, among which are RENAISSANCE CLASSICS (Olivier in The Merchant; Judi Dench in C of E; Guiness and Richardson in 12th N and Janet Suzman in Ant. & Cl.) ; The Branagh-directed 12th N and Much Ado; Zeffirelli's R&J, The Taylor/Burton Shrew, Polanski's Macbeth; The Olivier Hamlet, Richard III and Henry V and RSC's own Othello (McKellen and White) and Macbeth (Dench and McKellen). The RSC has a phone line (INT.DIAL +44 1789 296 860) and two 24-hour fax lines (44 1789/ 412 639 or 296196 ) and takes major credit cards. Oh yeah, in London it is five hours later than in New York! Happy hunting. Julie Muller Hogeschool Holland Amsterdam ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 08:27:12 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0763 Re: Hamlet Parody Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0763. Wednesday, 23 October 1996. (1) From: Michael J. Prince Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 19:34:31 +0200 (MET DST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody (2) From: Matthew Bibb Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 96 11:22:31 PST Subj: Re: Hamlet Parody (3) From: Norman J. Myers Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 14:37:24 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody (4) From: Ian Doescher Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 15:42:32 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody (5) From: Stephen Neville Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 16:08:41 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0760 Q: Hamlet Parody (6) From: Jodi Clark Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 16:21:06 +0200 (IST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody (7) From: Marcia Tanner Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 20:27:56 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody (8) From: Tom Clayton Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 20:30:20 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody (9) From: Stephen Buhler Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 16:43:41 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.060 and 7.0756 Stoppard and Quayle (10) From: Peter Paul Schnierer Date: Wednesday, 23 Oct 1996 10:44:44 +0200 (MESZ) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody (11) From: Alec Wild Date: Wednesday, 23 Oct 96 00:28:58 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody (12) From: Surajit A. Bose Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 22:42:50 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody (13) From: Chris Gordon Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 96 21:26:07 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael J. Prince Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 19:34:31 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody As regards the Hamlet parody, Tom Stoppard is your man. I believe it is called "The Fifteen Minute Hamlet" and when I saw it in NYC summer of '94 it was followed by "The Three-Minute Hamlet." The latter employed a rather intriguing surfance with trap doors which heads would pop out of and render the entire plot in frantic fractylic crystal precision. --Michael Prince (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Bibb Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 96 11:22:31 PST Subject: Re: Hamlet Parody Shannon, I'm guessing that the play you're looking for is Tom Stoppard's "The Fifteen-Minute Hamlet". I know that Sam French carries it, but if you don't have one in your area you may have to write for it, as most booksellers will give you a blank stare if you mention it. Best of luck. Matt Bibb UCLA Shakespeare Performance Group (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman J. Myers Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 14:37:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody Are you thinking of Tom Stoppard's "Fifteen Minute Hamlet?" Norman Myers Bowling Green State University (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian Doescher Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 15:42:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody To Shannon Murray, who was looking for the abbreviated Hamlet, There's one called the "Skinhead Hamlet" that is roughly twelve minutes and a comic adaptation (it's not as bad as the title describes). It's referenced to in Norrie Epstein's book _The Friendly Shakespeare_. I'm not sure how to get a hold of it, but that might be the one you're looking for. Ian (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Neville Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 16:08:41 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0760 Q: Hamlet Parody I wonder if you are refering to The Reduced Shakespeare Company who perform 'The Complete Works of Shakespeare' (Abridged) - All 37 plays in 97 minutes? I saw them at the Repertory Theatre in Birmingham (England) earlier this year. Hamlet, however, took rather longer than twelve minutes, it took the entire second half of their act. But they did do it about three or four times. Backwards was hilarious. The Reduced Shakespeare Company is made up of three American actors. They are currently appearing at the Criterion Theatre, Piccadilly London SW1 tel 0171 369 1747. They do Othello as a rap, and all the 'royal' plays as an American football game.They also do the 'Complete History of America (Abridged) one night a week. Regards Stephen Neville (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jodi Clark Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 16:21:06 +0200 (IST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody That would be the Fifteen Minute Hamlet by Tom Stoppard. Very funny piece. Good luck with it. Jodi Clark Emerson College Theatre Education Grad. Program (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcia Tanner Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 20:27:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody Shannon - The parody is called "The Fifteen Minute Hamlet" by Tom Stoppard and available through Samuel French. It is printed in Great Britain by Latimer Trend and Company, Ltd., Plymouth. That's all I know. Serendipitously, a copy of this little gem just crossed my desk two days ago, and lo, here is your post today. Enjoy. Marcia tannerm@scnc.okemos.k12.mi.us (8)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 20:30:20 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody I don't know a 12-minute *Hamlet*, but Tom Stoppard's *Dogg's Hamlet* (1979) conflates *Dogg's Our Pet* with *The Dogg's Troupe 15-minute Hamlet*, and the Faber (1980) edition of *Dogg's Hamlet, Cahoot's Macbeth* also the hilarious 1-minute Encore. Tom C (9)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Buhler Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 16:43:41 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.060 and 7.0756 Stoppard and Quayle Shannon Murray may be thinking of Tom Stoppard's (very funny indeed) *The Fifteen-Minute Hamlet*, which was published by Samuel French back in 1976. I'd also like to say a word in defense of Anthony Quayle's Falstaff for the BBC *1 Henry IV*, despite the disappointment expressed by my friend Charlie Ross. Quayle's performance makes the production valuable not so much as an achievement in Shakespeare-for-Video but rather as a quasi-document in stage history; it preserves, to some degree, the radical reworking of the character Quayle offered in 1951, as part of the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre's staging of the Henriad *as* a cycle. In some of the exchanges between this Falstaff and David Gwillim's Hal, there are distant echoes of what transpired between Quayle and the 1951 Hal crafted by Richard Burton. Scott McMillin's study of the play for the Manchester UP Shakespeare in Performance series provides very useful background and commentary concerning both productions. Stephen M. Buhler (10)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Paul Schnierer Date: Wednesday, 23 Oct 1996 10:44:44 +0200 (MESZ) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody Dear Shannon Murray, You may be thinking of Tom Stoppard's Fifteen-Minute Hamlet (with a one-minute Hamlet as the encore...) Yours, Peter (11)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alec Wild Date: Wednesday, 23 Oct 96 00:28:58 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody The Hamlet Parody of which you speak is probably "The Skinhead Hamlet," by Richard Curtis. I found it in a book entitled "The Faber Book of Parodies," edited by Simon Brett. Regards, Alec Wild (12)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Surajit A. Bose Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 22:42:50 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody Tom Stoppard's Dogg's Hamlet includes a fifteen-minute Hamlet with a two-minute encore. Is this the one of which you're thinking? (13)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Gordon Date: Tuesday, 22 Oct 96 21:26:07 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0760 Qs: Hamlet Parody Tom Stoppard is the author of _The Fifteen Minute Hamlet_. It's good fun! --Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 08:43:50 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0764 Re: Performances and BBC Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0764. Thursday, 24 October 1996. (1) From: Barbara Geisey Date: Wednesday, 23 Oct 96 8:16:23 -24000 Subj: Re: Performance (2) From: David Skeele Date: Wednesday, 23 Oct 1996 12:05:40 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0762 Re: Performances and BBC (3) From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 23 Oct 1996 15:29 ET Subj: SHK 7.0762 Re: Performances and (4) From: Paul Ashton Date: Wednesday, 23 Oct 1996 21:13:35 +0100 Subj: Re: Performances and BBC (5) From: Juhani Rudanko Date: Thursday, 24 Oct 1996 11:04:20 +0300 (EET DST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0758 Re: Performances and BBC (6) From: David Schalkwyk Date: Thursday, 24 Oct 1996 11:58:41 SAST-2 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0762 Re: Performances and BBC (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Geisey Date: Wednesday, 23 Oct 96 8:16:23 -24000 Subject: Re: Performance Ambrose Video (800-526-4663) suggests "this series [BBC complete collection of Shakespeare's Plays] is offered exclusively through Ambrose Video Publishing." All 37 plays $2,500.00. Each play $99.95. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Wednesday, 23 Oct 1996 12:05:40 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0762 Re: Performances and BBC I apologize in advance for any repetition of material that this request might cause. Over the last couple of weeks I remember that there were two postings which dealt with the availability of essays and books about the BBC Shakespeare series. Unfortunately, I deleted these, and I now find myself in need of this information. I am in the process of adding my own revisions to a critical and theatrical history of PERICLES (to be published over the next year or so by University of Delaware Press--if I may do a little cyber-promotion here) that I have written, and I am considering including the BBC production. I would be highly interested in any writings which place these television productions in cultural/historical context. Do any of the previously-announced publications do this? The only one I can think of is the published conference proceedings entitled "Is Shakespeare Still Our Contemporary?" I remember that one of the people who had written about them was Hardy Cook himself, and I can't remember the other person. Would you mind posting them again (to me personally, probably)? Thanks Again! (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 23 Oct 1996 15:29 ET Subject: SHK 7.0762 Re: Performances and The BBC Time-Life productions of Shakespeare can be ordered from The Writing Company, at $99.95 per play or $2500 for the whole set. Phone 800-421-4246, fax 800-944-5432. Email access@writingco.com. I suspect that there are other outlets, too; I wish I could pretend I knew of one that offered better prices. I'd be interested to know why, long after the costs ought to have been amortized or written off, the producers continue to demand prices so far out of line with the commercially released tapes of other productions. David Evett (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Ashton Date: Wednesday, 23 Oct 1996 21:13:35 +0100 Subject: Re: Performances and BBC The BBC only released a selected number of titles from their Shakespeare series. From memory, they are as follows: King Lear, Macbeth, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Romeo and Juliet, The Taming of the Shrew, The Winter's Tale, Henry IV Part 1, Henry IV Part 2, Henry V, Othello (two tapes), Hamlet (two tapes), The Tempest, Measure for Measure, As You Like It, Twelfth Night, Anthony and Cleoplatra, The Merry Wives of Windsor, Julius Ceasar... I think that's it. A couple of years back the BBC ceased producing them under its own brand, and licensed them out here exclusively to the book and newsagent chain WH Smith. Unfortunately, most branches of WH Smith are too small to carry these titles in their video department - even the big Oxford Street, London, store carries no more than half-a-dozen. The versions are, however, complete, only differing from the originals in badging and price (310.99 instead of the BBC's 315.99). Virgin Records in Oxford Street still carries a few original BBCs but HMV has exhausted its supply. I understand that the deal with WH Smith is due to end soon, so hopefully they will become widely available again. HMV, incidently, carries the English Shakespeare Company's War of the Roses series - separate tapes for R2, 1H4, 2H4, H5, and R3, and the H6s truncated into The House of Lancaster and The House of York. These were filmed live in performance in Swansea in the 1980s. The boxed set is available for 380. The RSC at Stratford has a resource centre that holds tapes of all the BBC series, including the plays not released commercially. It holds other versions too, I understand. You can't buy, but you can watch. I'm not entirely sure of the arrangement, but I think it is free - you merely need to give them a couple of days warning that you're coming. The number is (UK)1789 204016. Paul Ashton pash@mail.bogo.co.uk (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juhani Rudanko Date: Thursday, 24 Oct 1996 11:04:20 +0300 (EET DST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0758 Re: Performances and BBC In spite of the opinion voiced on the list that the BBC shop in London, off Oxford Street, is the best place to buy BBC videos, I would like to mention my experience in that shop some three or four years ago when I went there with the express purpose of buying BBC videos. They did have tapes of some of the plays but not the ones that I wanted, namely Coriolanus, Timon, and Titus. From a shop assistant in the shop I got the impression that the BBC productions of these three plays may not be available for sale to the public at all, at least not in Great Britain, and that their sale may be restricted to certain organizations. So to this day I have been unable to get hold of these. The reference to PBS stations in America selling the whole set for USD 2.500 looks to me like the best advice so far on the list on how to get hold of BBC videos. I will look into in during my next trip to the US. Of course, if some member of the list has further information on whether the BBC productions of Coriolanus, Timon, and Titus might be available for sale to the public, in the US or elsewhere, without the need to buy the whole set, this would be most helpful. Juhani Rudanko, University of Tampere, Finland (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Schalkwyk Date: Thursday, 24 Oct 1996 11:58:41 SAST-2 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0762 Re: Performances and BBC The frustrations of those (especially "non-academics") who have been unable to get the BBC Shakespeare videos may be slightly relieved at the news that the videos were, initially at least, not meant for wide public distribution. I forget the exact wording at the beginning of each video, but the gist is that the series is meant for educational and training purposes only and is available only to such institutions. This announcement is the first thing I discuss with my students. It constitutes a certain political framework which is pertinent to the debate about the quality of the series as a whole. David Schalkwyk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 08:53:23 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0765 Interim Pacino R3 Film Web Site Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0765. Thursday, 24 October 1996. From: Laura Blanchard Date: Wednesday, 23 Oct 1996 08:21:31 -0400 Subject: Interim Pacino R3 Film Web Site Since Fox/Searchlight has not finalized any plans for a web presence for Pacino's quasi-documentary "Looking for Richard," the Richard III Society has put up the text of their promotional brochure plus cast bios and the Society's predictable press release. Fox/Searchlight has just sent me a sheaf of reviews, and I hope to have excerpts of them posted as well. Rumor (i.e., Fox/Searchlight International, which contacted me last summer) has it that they're preparing a study guide, but further information has been difficult to find. Our Pacino section: http://www.webcom.com/blanchrd/pacino/ Regards, Laura Blanchard Richard III Society, American Branch lblanchard@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 08:55:50 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0766 Literary Holiday Gift Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0766. Thursday, 24 October 1996. From: Chris Gordon Date: Wednesday, 23 Oct 96 18:50:56 -0500 Subject: Literary Holiday Gift Dear SHAKSPER Colleagues: My charming spouse, who has an advanced degree in child psychology and makes his living writing software, has obviously been surrounded by literary types for too long. The result: a 1997 engagement calendar called "The Book of Fictional Days: A collection of events that did not really happen." This week-by-week calendar includes events from fiction (plus a few films and songs) on the dates they occurred. A few examples: Jan 12: HAL 9000 becomes operational (in 1997!) _2001: A Space Odyssey_ Arthur C. Clarke; March 1: Hetty abandons her baby in the wood (1800) _Adam Bede_ George Eliot; April 30: The "author" of the history is born in the village of Gorukhin (1801) _History of the Village of Gorukhin_ Pushkin. Bob's literary agent was unable to place the calendar with a publisher, so we have self-published 500 copies, some of which are being sold through Minneapolis-St. Paul bookstores. People who have seen the calendar think it's a great idea. If you'd be interested in a copy for yourself or a friend, contact Bob Gordon at bgordon@fona.com for more information. Thanks for listening! --Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 08:57:52 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0767 Q: *AYL* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0767. Thursday, 24 October 1996. From: John Boni Date: Wednesday, 23 Oct 1996 15:46:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Q: *AYL* To my embarrassment, a student raised an excellent question during our discussion of *As You Like It*. I was embarrassed because, in all my years of considering this play, one which I enjoy very much, I never noticed this--the texture of prose and verse in this play. She (my student) asked why there is so much prose and why the delineations between the two forms. There is no comedy versus serious stuff correlative (hmm, problem with terminology there), no social rank of characters correlation. Anyone who has some ideas on this? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 18:42:48 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0768 Re: "Fifteen Minute Hamlet"; Performances and BBC Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0768. Friday, 25 October 1996. (1) From: Robert Greer Date: Thursday, 24 Oct 1996 09:27:21 EST Subj: "Fifteen Minute Hamlet" (2) From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 24 Oct 1996 14:14:03 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0764 Re: Performances and BBC (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Greer Date: Thursday, 24 Oct 1996 09:27:21 EST Subject: "Fifteen Minute Hamlet" Here is libaray catalog information for it. ======================================================================= Author: Stoppard, Tom. Title: The fifteen minute Hamlet / by Tom Stoppard. Publisher: London ; New York : French, 1976. Description: 16 p. ; 19 cm. Series: French's theatre scripts Add'l authors: Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 24 Oct 1996 14:14:03 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0764 Re: Performances and BBC I had a chat with the UBC video librarian a while ago, about getting some plays I wanted to show to students. The price for the BBC set is high, but it includes (at least in Canada) an unlimited right to show them to groups. The videos in stores, which you can rent for $2.50 for three days, or purchase for $19.99, cannot be shown to groups legally. The point David Schalkwyk raised, about them not being meant for individual viewing, also explains the strange pricing. He might be able to extend his look at the politics of the films, into the politics of copyright! Cheers, Sean. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 18:55:05 EDT Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0769 Re: *AYL* -- Verse and Prose Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0769. Friday, 25 October 1996. (1) From: David M Richman Date: Thursday, 24 Oct 1996 14:11:09 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0767 Q: *AYL* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Thursday, 24 Oct 1996 10:44:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0767 Q: *AYL* I have a few speculations--that's all they are--which we probed when we produced *As You Like It* a few years ago. Much of the play is given over to satire of love-poetry, and of conventional attitudes toward the business, pleasure, and pain of wooing. Ganymede, for he most part, is a creature of prose; Phebe and Silvius conduct themselves mostly in verse. When the action requires greater intensity and precision, verse is employed--as in the ritual declarations in V, ii, that Ganymede compares to the howling of Irish wolves against the moon. Jaques's weighty meditation in II, vii is in verse, though his scenes of mockery are in prose. The formal banishment of Rosalind by Frederic is conducted, as it must be, in verse. Much Ado, another play that mocks courtly conventions of love, contains a high proportion of prose. David Richman University of New Hampshire (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pixley Date: Thursday, 24 Oct 1996 14:11:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0767 Q: *AYL* I believe there is no generalizable answer to this very important question. My own experience has been that whenever Shakespeare (or Jonson or Moliere) switches from prose to verse or back to prose, the dramatic situation is in some way informed by that switch, but that each instance demands its own analysis. In a quick look at _AYLI_, the first instance of verse that I find occurs at I:2, l. 220, when the Duke learns that Orlando's father is his enemy. The Duke's abrupt switch into verse suggests to me his introducing a more formal, perhaps stiffer, attitude into what had been, till then, a quite informal atmosphere. When Celia, Rosalind, and Orlando continue the scene in verse, their formality is probably not from the same reserve as the Duke's, but may suggest a caution against exposing their inmost feelings too directly, as prose might do. Rosalind, for example, does not identify that "more" that she could give nor the "more" that he has "overthrown," and Orland asks What passion hangs these weights upon my tongue? I cannot speak to her, yet she urged conference. ll. 260-61 Though these two examples hardly establish a pattern, they are the first and only two I looked at in response to your question about a play that I have never previously studied with the verse/prose question in mind. I think that, more often than not, examining any such verse/prose shifts will yield important insights into what is happening to the characters dramatically. I predict that, more often than not, whenever you find a verse/prose shift in Shakespeare, that shift will provide insights into what is happening to the characters dramatically at that moment. By the way, don't be embarrassed that you have not asked this question before. The paucity of criticism on the subject suggests that you are in overwelmingly good company. Happy analyzing, Ed Pixley SUNY-Oneonta========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 14:46:25 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0770 Qs: Hendiadys; "Jazz age" Much Ado? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0770. Monday, 28 October 1996. (1) From: Jennifer Kordus Date: Saturday, 26 Oct 1996 11:20:45 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Hendiadys (2) From: Jeff Nyhoff Date: Saturday, 26 Oct 1996 10:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Subj: "Jazz age" Much Ado? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jennifer Kordus Date: Saturday, 26 Oct 1996 11:20:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Hendiadys Dear SHAKSPEReans, I am interested in the hendiadys phrases and was wondering what has been done on the subject respecting its history. I was also curious as to whether many people have written on Shakespeare's use of hendiadys and who the standard references are. I'd greatly appreciate any information that you could give me. Thank you, Jenna Kordus (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Nyhoff Date: Saturday, 26 Oct 1996 10:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: "Jazz age" Much Ado? I recall reading about an RSC (?) production in the early-to-mid 80's (or late 70's?) which set "Much Ado" in the "Jazz Age"... Or maybe it was at Stratford, Ontario? Anyone able to help me jog my memory? Jeff Nyhoff Calvin College jnyhoff@calvin.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 14:50:27 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0771 Re: Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0771. Monday, 28 October 1996. From: Surajit A. Bose Date: Sunday, 27 Oct 1996 23:46:09 -0500 Subject: Re: Politics Thomas Bishop writes >The fact that English uses phonemic stress whereas >French does not, or that languages that shift stress >routinely onto first syllables tend to develop alliterative >meters, or even that all known human societies practise >the composition and exchange of narratives: these are >not in any useful sense "political" facts by themselves. Umm, well....actually, all these facts *were* political, and useful, in the sixteenth century. Take Sidney's *Defence*, for example. He wonders whether a good English poetry should use quantitative or accentual-syllabic meter. This isn't just an academic or purely aesthetic question for him, but part of the larger question: what should English national culture look like? What should England, as a political entity, be and mean? The question of a fit English meter gets taken up and argued out after Sidney by Campion (who disdains rhyme) and Daniel (who favors it). Daniel has to defend rhyme against the accusation that it enforces a tyrannical governance on poetry. It's quite easy to see a homology between Daniel's defence of rhyme and royalist arguments against Puritans. I'd argue that it's more than a homology. Nowadays we simply can't figure out how the meter is supposed to work in Sidney's quantitative poems in the *Arcadia* or in Campion. Accentual-syllabic metrical analysis, on the other hand, is regularly taught in Intro to Lit classes--hell, even I teach it, and my colleagues regard me as a diehard reactionary, or else a quaint fuddy-duddy, in consequence. It's so completely naturalized by now that we can't even imagine the alternative. An English poem in *sapphics*? Good God! But dactylic tetrameter; ah, that makes perfect sense. But in teaching accentual-syllabic meter as an intrinsic part of poetic language, an aesthetic fact meaningful in itself, we dehistoricize it and situate it in a realm of value-neutrality. The classic strategy of political hegemony is to dehistoricize ideologically constructed positions and claim value-neutrality for them. Prosody doesn't lack political resonance; we've lost the ability to think about prosody politically. Now there's a fact. I've not tackled the "all human societies practice...narratives" argument here, but as I've argued elsewhere (I've always wanted to say that! I've never footnoted myself before!), Sidney talks about that in an explicitly political way too. As for Bill Godshalk's "everything isn't political--it's sexual," what's the difference? I thought feminists and queer theorists had amply demonstrated that the sexual was the political. And our prurient interest in Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs and John-John's wedding suggests that the reverse is true too. Of course, just to assert that everything is political or sexual or prosodical or whatever begs the "so what" question. Anapestic hexameters, with or without caesurae, with or without catalexis, with or without spondaic variations, are political. And sexy. So what? Ah, now the argument begins....and like jesting Pilate, I'll ask the question but won't stay for an answer. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 14:56:57 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0772 Re: *AYL* -- Verse and Prose Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0772. Monday, 28 October 1996. (1) From: Pervez Rizvi Date: Monday, 28 Oct 96 12:53:15 GMT Subj: Prose/verse split in AYL (2) From: Rick Jones Date: Monday, 28 Oct 1996 09:25:45 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0769 Re: *AYL* -- Verse and Prose (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pervez Rizvi Date: Monday, 28 Oct 96 12:53:15 GMT Subject: Prose/verse split in AYL I agree with Ed Pixley that switches between prose and verse are made because of dramatic requirements, not just casually. I had a browse through AYL and it seems to me that the verse/prose changes there are explicable: (i) All comic passages are in prose, as they are in other plays. This accounts for all of Touchstone's speeches and a high proportion of Rosalind's speeches, both with Celia and Orlando. (ii) Duke Senior's speeches are in verse because he is a nobleman and must speak in a formal, 'high' style rather than 'vulgar' prose. (iii) The romantic passages between Rosalind/Orlando and Pheobe/Silvius are of course in verse. (iv) Jacques' speeches are in verse when he is speaking 'philosophically', e.g. the seven ages of man speech, in prose when he is indulging in his brand of humour, e.g. with Touchstone. I accept that this adhoc explanation is open to refutation and I'm sure it doesn't account for everything, e.g. why scene 1.1 is in prose. Perhaps someone can improve on it. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Monday, 28 Oct 1996 09:25:45 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0769 Re: *AYL* -- Verse and Prose I wanted to add just a brief expansion to the comments of David Richman and Ed Pixley, both of whom make good points. I tell actors to watch for any changes in the verse (or prose) as *possible* indicators of a change in the action of the scene, and I use the declarations scene (V.ii) in AYLI as the primary example. The scene (or, rather, the French scene) starts in blank verse, interrupting a prose conversation between Orlando and Ros/Gan. The first line, Phebe's "Youth, you have done me much ungentleness," is irregular (or at least awkward), suggesting the transition. Thereafter, with the exception of several "feminine endings," the verse pattern is clean iambic: but we switch back and forth between pentameter and trimeter, and (most significantly) Ros/Gan's "And I for no woman" is in *prose*, surrounded by the most conventional iambics imaginable (I'd be tempted to pronounce "Phebe" as one syllable to push the point even further). Thus not only Ros/Gan's lines, but their form, undercuts the pretentious romanticism of the other characters and suggests, just possibly, that there may be more to love than conventional declarations of it. BTW, I wish I could say I noticed on my own that the shift to prose happens before "Why do you speak too..." Alas, I didn't. Cicely Berry has an excellent discussion of the scene in *The Actor and His Text* in the original English publication]. Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 18:57:37 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0773 Additions to Charactr Biblio Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0773. Tuesday, 29 October 1996. From: Pervez Rizvi Date: Monday, 28 Oct 96 13:12:24 GMT Subject: Additions to Charactr Biblio Two suggested additions to the list of works in which WS appears as a character: 1. "Will Shakespeare" by John Mortimer, published in the UK by Hodder and Staughton in 1977. This is the novelisation of a British TV drama series about the life of Shakespeare. 2. "Dogg's Hamlet" by Tom Stoppard. Shakespeare speaks the prologue. The first edition (1970) of the late Prof. Schoenbaum's book "Shakespeare's Lives" contained a chapter on works involving Shakespeare. This was cut from the second edition (1992). If someone has access to the 1st edition, they might be able to enlarge the list further. [Editor's Note: This posting refers to CHARACTR BIBLIO, "A bibliography of works in which Shakespeare figures as a character." SHAKSPEReans can retrieve CHARACTR BIBLIO from the SHAKSPER Fileserver by sending a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET CHARACTR BIBLIO".] ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 19:03:30 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0774 Re: Hendiadys Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0774. Tuesday, 29 October 1996. (1) From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Monday, 28 Oct 1996 12:54:26 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0770 Q: Hendiadys (2) From: Mark Womack Date: Monday, 28 Oct 1996 17:30:37 -0600 Subj: Re: Hendiadys (3) From: Tanya Pollard Date: Monday, 28 Oct 1996 22:28:28 -0500 (EST) Subj: re: Hendiadys (4) From: Constance Relihan Date: Tuesday, 29 Oct 1996 09:24:39 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0770 Qs: Hendiadys (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Monday, 28 Oct 1996 12:54:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0770 Q: Hendiadys George T. Wright published a major essay, "Hendiadys and Hamlet" in _PMLA_ 96 (1981). He received the award for the best essay published in _PMLA_ that year. Sara van den Berg University of Washington (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Womack Date: Monday, 28 Oct 1996 17:30:37 -0600 Subject: Re: Hendiadys An excellent essay on hendiadys in Shakespeare is George T. Wright's "Hendiadys and Hamlet," PMLA March 1981: 168-93. The article gives a clear account of hendiadys itself, explores how the figure is used in Hamlet, and includes an appendix listing how frequently hendiadys occurs in all Shakespeare's plays. The essay is written with the intelligence, clarity, and scholarly rigor we've come to expect from Wright. Mark Womack womack@mail.utexas.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Pollard Date: Monday, 28 Oct 1996 22:28:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: re: Hendiadys In response to the query from Jenna Kordus: George T. Wright has an article called "Hendiadys and Hamlet" in PMLA 96 (1981), 168ff; Frank Kermode also discusses the device at length in an essay called "Cornelius and Voltemand: Doubles in Hamlet," in his _Forms of Attention_ (Chicago, 1985). I don't know offhand of broader discussions. I hope this is helpful! Tanya Pollard (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Constance Relihan Date: Tuesday, 29 Oct 1996 09:24:39 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0770 Qs: Hendiadys For Jennifer Kordus: I would think that any discussion of Shakespeare's use of hendiadys should include George T. Wright's PMLA article, "Hendiadys and Hamlet." I can't recall the year of publication. Constance C. Relihan Auburn University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 19:05:10 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0775 Columbia University Seminar on Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0775. Tuesday, 29 October 1996. From: Jill Niemczyk Smith Date: Monday, 28 Oct 1996 15:26:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Columbia University Seminar on Shakespeare The COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SEMINAR ON SHAKESPEARE is pleased to announce that Shep Sobol will be speaking about directing *Cymbeline* for performance at the Pearl Theatre at our meeting on Friday, 1 November 1996 at the Faculty House on the Columbia University campus in New York City. Local and visiting Shakespeareans are welcome. Please contact Jill Niemczyk Smith at jan5@columbia.edu for further information. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 19:14:15 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0776 Qs: Lodgings in London; Benjamin, Adorno; Marlowe Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0776. Tuesday, 29 October 1996. (1) From: Sandy Feinstein Date: Tuesday, 29 Oct 1996 14:31:43 -0400 Subj: Lodgings in London? (2) From: John Lee Date: Tuesday, 29 Oct 1996 10:09:32 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Benjamin? Adorno? (3) From: Peter Paul Schnierer Date: Tuesday, 29 Oct 1996 14:10:48 +0100 (MEZ) Subj: Marlowe (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sandy Feinstein Date: Tuesday, 29 Oct 1996 14:31:43 -0400 Subject: Lodgings in London? I would like to ask my colleagues in London if they know of any available dormitory space or of any particularly indulgent families for the period from 15 December to 19 December 1996. My very small Renaissance class (6 students: 5 women, 1 man) has raised money that will enable them to pay for the $400 Round Trip ticket from Wichita, Kansas to London. These are students with very limited financial resources, but very hard working (and very bright). The teacher (me) can afford to put herself up at a B&B or small hotel, so there is less urgency to find her complimentary or low, low cost housing. If you know of _anything_, or need more information about the students or the trip, please contact me at either e-mail address: Feinstei@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu (my list serv address) or Sandy@jinx.sckans.edu All assistance will be deeply appreciated. Sandy Feinstein Assoc. Prof. of English (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Lee Date: Tuesday, 29 Oct 1996 10:09:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Benjamin? Adorno? I'd be very grateful if anyone could locate the phrase `the aestheticization of politics' for me. I thought it was from Walter Benjamin, but perhaps it was from Adorno. Thanks, John Lee (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Paul Schnierer Date: Tuesday, 29 Oct 1996 14:10:48 +0100 (MEZ) Subject: Marlowe A colleague of mine maintains that the latest serious attempt to assign Shakespeare' plays to Marlowe was made by an Austrian scholar last year, but cannot recall the publication details. Can anybody help us? Our bibliographical tools here haven't reached 1995 yet. Thanks! Peter ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 19:21:52 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0777 Re: SEX and Politics; Who originated the roles? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0777. Tuesday, 29 October 1996. (1) From: Norm Holland Date: Tuesday, 29 Oct 96 14:17:55 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0771 Re: Politics (2) From: Andy Grewar Date: Tuesday, 29 Oct 1996 13:25:13 GMT+120 Subj: Re: Who originated the roles? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Tuesday, 29 Oct 96 14:17:55 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0771 Re: Politics Isn't the problem with "everything is political" or "everything is sexual" that the adjectives are being applied in the wrong place? Things aren't in and of themselves political or sexual. We take a political or sexual view of them. Properly stated, the proposition would be, "Everything can be looked at politically or sexually or vegetarianly or Zoroastrianly or any way you choose." --Best, Norm Holland (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andy Grewar Date: Tuesday, 29 Oct 1996 13:25:13 GMT+120 Subject: Re: Who originated the roles? On Monday, 21 Oct, Michael Kremer asked: > Is there a source which gives documentary evidence about which > actors originated the primary roles in each of Shakespeare's plays? > I am particularly interested in who originated the role of > Falstaff. > > The only comment I have been able to find attributes the role to > Thomas Pope. This is an area of speculation and uncertainty, and I doubt very much whether documentary evidence for such things will ever be found. The only work I know that attempts to answer your question is: T.W. Baldwin, _The Organization and Personnel of the Shakespearean Company_. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1927. Baldwin worked on the assumption that the actors of the Lord Chamberlain's/King's Men each had a particular "line" or type of role, one specializing in the role of the "low comic", another in that of the "gruff military man", the "braggart" and so on. Later writers have found his arguments dubious. It is this line of reasoning that leads him to assign the part of Falstaff to Thomas Pope. There are two recent books which deal with the original Shakespearean company: T.J. King, _Casting Shakespeare's plays: London actors and their roles, 1590-1642_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. David Mann, _The Elizabethan Player: Contemporary stage representation_. London/New York: Routledge, 1991. Both avoid speculation and concentrate on what contemporary evidence there is for the stagecraft of the time. There is also Wiles's book on Shakespeare's clowns, Kemp and Armin: David Wiles, _Shakespeare's Clown: Actor and Text in the Elizabethan Playhouse_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. As far as I can recall, Wiles argues that Falstaff would first have been played by William Kemp, the company's chief clown. The role seems to be an amalgam of two older stock types, one deriving back through the Italian renaissance to Roman comedy, namely the "braggart soldier", and that of the "fool/clown/jester". Goldsmith's work, "Shakespeare's Wise Fools", is the standard work on the latter. Andy Grewar University of Fort Hare Alice, Eastern Cape South Africa Grewar@ufhcc.ufh.ac.za ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 21:23:26 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0778 Re: Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0778. Tuesday, 29 October 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 29 Oct 1996 21:38:59 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0777 Re: SEX and Politics (2) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Wednesday, 30 Oct 1996 08:34:22 -0500 Subj: Re: Politics (3) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Wednesday, 30 Oct 1996 08:34:56 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0771 Re: Politics (4) From: David E. Frydrychowski Date: Wednesday, 30 Oct 1996 12:48:15 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0777 Re: SEX and Politics (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 29 Oct 1996 21:38:59 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0777 Re: SEX and Politics Norm Holland writes (reasonably): >Isn't the problem with "everything is political" or "everything is sexual" that >the adjectives are being applied in the wrong place? Things aren't in and of >themselves political or sexual. We take a political or sexual view of them. >Properly stated, the proposition would be, "Everything can be looked at >politically or sexually or vegetarianly or Zoroastrianly or any way you >choose." I gather that the assertion "everything is sexual" is meant to be a parody of "everything is political." Norm's solution seems moderate and reasonable, but I think that those who assert that everything is political would reject moderation and rationality as the worn out tools of the Enlightenment Project. I think that our political theorists really believe that "politics" (i.e., power relationships?) are fundamental to all human acts. It's not a matter of approach; it's a matter of what motivates our actions. Am I wrong? Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Wednesday, 30 Oct 1996 08:34:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Politics Mr. Egan writes: >There's no point giving one's own set of 'facts' about text and asserting that >these are un-political. What happens to different models of textuality, and why >different models are valued at different times, is the deeply political matter >that students must be able to address. It was not my intention to expound an exhaustive set of facts about English texts, but to begin to clear some ground that might provide us with a shared agreement about what criteria there are that -can- delineate facts about texts. I profoundly agree that students should be encouraged to engage in criticism of their own intellectual heritage. But Mr. Egan's account of his class seems to show that what they are being taught to do there is to "Ask Mr. Egan" to explain the history and politics of the readings for this week. Are they researching for themselves "why different models are valued at different times"? Is there, in fact, agreement about this? Or merely dogma? What might help us reach agreement? What relevant "facts" might there be in the question? By all means read Propp. And ask about his politics, if we can judge them. Or of those who adopted him -- if we can judge them. But also ask, as Propp does: how are narratives put together? What aspects of a narrative's design does Propp's model address? What aspects is it incapable of addressing? If one does this for a poetic text, one is sooner or later going to have to explain that in English, the regular fronting of stress onto the first syllable, has made alliteration a prominent element in the patterning of sound. (And yes, here too there is a political dimension in the influence of French and Latin meters in displacing alliteration as a primary organizing feature of English verse. Yet that does not invalidate the observation.) That one does not have to explain it all the time doesnt mean it's any less a fact. My heart beats even when I dont pay attention to it (I can prove this). I agree with Gabriel Egan that an important function of intellectual activity in the humanities is to ask what assumptions we are making about how to frame the objects of our inquiries, and further, to inquire into the history of those assumptions withinand beyond our disciplines. One source of criticism of our assumptions is surely, as Mr Egan says, the possibility that the objects of our analysis have been framed for inspection by political choices or assumptions that we might wish to dispute. This exercise of "critique" over our educational institutions is by no means confined to the present, or to the Left. It is at least as old as Plato. It has been one of the ongoing preoccupations of philosophy since its inception. Bacon is referring to it in seeking to deliver us from "the Idols." But Mr. Egan seems to me to be making a further claim, which I am inclined to dispute. He seems to be claiming that "facts" can only ever exist in relation to some framework of knowledge that constitutes them, and not otherwise, that is that they have -no- independent existence. This is a rather odd thing for a Marxist to claim, if that is what Mr. Egan is, since one of Marxism's major strengths as a tradition of critique is to point with great and bracing moral rigour to the indisputable fact of historical oppression and human suffering, one that demands to be recognized for what it is and -not- translated into something more convenient for the purposes of the oppressors. This may be called "vulgar Marxism" by some, but it remains the heart of Marxism's claim to be taken seriously as a moral and political discourse. I cannot see how it could be otherwise without becoming totally inane. To make this claim as a historical discipline, it must be able to argue cogently that oppression exists, that it can be identified and explained. Otherwise, it can have no basis for imagining what might consitute an improvement and hence developing a politics in the first place. It must have a vision of human need, of how that need has been and is being violated, and how it could better be answered. In order to do this, it must, unless it is merely to become a set of rhetorical postures, have a view about the facts. For instance, the "fact" that people deprived of food for long enough will die, will cease to exist as active, embodied historical agents endowed with will and consciousness. There must be, in other words, agreed criteria, according to historical logic, as to what and how facts exist. That doesn not mean they are easy to determine, but one must start somewhere. I would have thought E. P. Thompson had laid these particular ghosts to rest in his great critique of Althusser, whom Egan seems in some sort to be following here. Some facts, then, remain facts even if we choose not to address or invoke them in a particular act of reading. The chemical structure of alcohol remains the same, even if one chooses not to drink it. That Propp -- and Mr. Egan's class -- did not cite phonemic stress in English is neither here nor there. It is still a fact, and a fact in his class, if not one before his class, if he conducts it in English. (And I'm sure in fact Vladimir Propp -would- have been interested in it as a central trait in the phonological structure of English, if he had turned his mind to it). I do not have the expertise to discuss the definition of a phoneme or of vocalic stress (though Roman Jacobson and Calvert Watkins do, and I take their word for it). Does Mr. Egan? Shall we discuss it? But I note that Mr. Egan does -not- dispute my claim that "all known human societies practise the composition and exchange of narratives". Would he care to dispute the framing of that as a mere fact? It seems a suitably general place to start. It is, if you like, a "political" fact, purporting to tell us something about human sociality. If we could understand or agree about it, we might also be on the way to grounding "politics" in relation to Propp in a new way. At least it might give us something to chew on on SHAKSPER that we could bring back to the nominal subject of the list. Cheers, Tom (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Wednesday, 30 Oct 1996 08:34:56 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0771 Re: Politics Surajit A. Bose points out quite rightly that the question of what meter would best serve the development or "improvement" of English letters was a political question in the sixteenth century. It is a good point. But it's a slightly different one from the one I was making, and the fate of Sidney's own efforts to wrest English phonology into quantitative patterns makes my point over again. Sidney's efforts to impose quantity on English meter by sheer willpower, for political ends, were a rather embarrassing failure, and most of the results are now impenetrable, as Bose points out. No-one legislated for political ends the eventual dominance of accentual meters: the architects of these latter were in fact the very ones trying to foment support for quantity in the 1580, viz. Sidney and Spenser. The facts of English phonology dont provide a basis for choosing quantity as the organizing principle of a metrical system, and no amount of classicist trumpetting can make them do it. Sidney did not know this, or chose to ignore it out of political zeal. I would never deny that prosody -can- have a political resonance. No reader of Paradise Lost, to take only an explicit example, can be unaware of that. That seventeenth-century theorists often allegorized their meters in political terms is something we need to know in order to read them carefully and fully. But it is their habit of -allegorizing- that is historically important, a habit we (mostly) no longer have. Anything can be allegorized - but this is very different from attempting to analyze it without allegory. Likewise I have no problem imagining an English poem in Sapphics -- in fact I know several. But such a poem needs to do one of two things -- adapt the Greek quantities to English stress accent somehow (the usual choice), or invent arbitrary rules for assigning quantity to a language that doesnt use it (the Sidney option, and, in part, what Latin also may have done in adapting Greek meters for ends in part political). I am not proposing that we "teach accentual-syllabic meter as an intrinsic part of poetic language, an aesthetic fact meaningful in itself." It is a long way from the observation of a tendency of English words to stress their first syllables to the construction of a metrical system based on that fact. I do however believe that the occurrence of phonemic stress (for instance) in English is a historical accident, entirely contingent, and therefore, properly speaking, without intrinsic political meaning until taken up into a specific political argument -- and that the latter move is an inappropriate one. It is very dangerous to begin allegorizing some aspects of language as "intrinsically superior" to others as the bearers of value. Poets like to do this as much as politicians, I grant you, but, at a certain point, they should both be resisted. I do not say that observations about language have not been "framed" for political purposes. At one time Chinese was held by some Western linguists to be inferior because of its structure. But I do say that, as a language, Chinese has certain characteristics which can be described scrupulously, or not. Sometimes that lack of scruple results from political interest, ideology or pressure, as was the case with biology in the Soviet Union under Stalin. But Stalinist biology, like racist linguistics, like creation science, was a failure precisely insofar as it stopped being scrupulous about defining and delimiting the relations between fact and theory. The facts, and their limits, need to be struggled for, not regarded a priori as delusive ideological phantoms. But no one said that was going to be easy. Cheers, Tom (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David E. Frydrychowski Date: Wednesday, 30 Oct 1996 12:48:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0777 Re: SEX and Politics Norm Holland asks us to remember that no political or sexual element inheres within the text, and that we choose to impose a certain reading on the text. To me, this implies that we sully the pure phosphor of thought with our particular interpretation. Surely the critique has advanced us to the point where we can see that reading is essentially dyadic - it is far more valuable to consider our purchase on the truth than it is to long for the roast partriges which we think to be hidden behind the podium. To paraphrase Wm. James, perhaps "pure" reading of the texts is posssible, but where on this moonlit and dream-visited planet is it to be found? Dave Frydrychowski MFA Candidate, CWRU/Cleveland Play House ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 21:29:15 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0779 Q: TN in Playing Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0779. Tuesday, 29 October 1996. From: Edna Boris Date: Wednesday, 30 Oct 96 07:59:41 EST Subject: Playing Shakespeare One of the videotapes in the Playing Shakespeare (John Barton) series uses Twelfth Night as the focus for rehersal. The library system that my university uses classifies those tapes not by the overall series but by the names of individual tapes. Therefore, unless I know the name of the tape that uses Twelfth Night, I cannot retrieve it. Does anyone know the name of that tape? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 21:33:53 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0780 Re: Benjamin, Adorno Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0780. Tuesday, 29 October 1996. (1) From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Wednesday, 30 Oct 1996 12:03:42 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0776 Qs: Benjamin, Adorno (2) From: Surajit A. Bose Date: Wednesday, 30 Oct 1996 11:13:33 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0776 Qs: Benjamin, Adorno (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Wednesday, 30 Oct 1996 12:03:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0776 Qs: Benjamin, Adorno To John Lee: Sounds like Fredric Jameson to me. Lynn Gajowski Associate Professor of English University of Nevada, Las Vegas (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Surajit A. Bose Date: Wednesday, 30 Oct 1996 11:13:33 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0776 Qs: Benjamin, Adorno John Lee asks: >I'd be very grateful if anyone could locate the phrase `the aestheticization of >politics' for me. I thought it was from Walter Benjamin, but perhaps it was >from Adorno. Benjamin discusses the aestheticization of politics in "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," when he discusses fascism.========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:55:28 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0781 Re: TN in Playing Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0781. Friday, 1 November 1996. (1) From: Ron Moyers Date: Wednesday, 30 Oct 1996 22:04:24 -0600 (CST) Subj: RE: SHK 7.0779 Q: TN in Playing Shakespeare (2) From: Douglas Buchanan Date: Thursday, 31 Oct 1996 8:10:24 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0779 Q: TN in Playing Shakespeare (3) From: Alan Young Date: Thursday, 31 Oct 1996 14:48:41 AST4ADT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0779 Q: TN in Playing Shakespeare (4) From: Edna Z. Boris <104757.652@CompuServe.COM> Date: Thursday, 31 Oct 96 19:21:06 EST Subj: TN thanks (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Moyers Date: Wednesday, 30 Oct 1996 22:04:24 -0600 (CST) Subject: RE: SHK 7.0779 Q: TN in Playing Shakespeare The Playing Shakespeare tape in which Barton rehearses Judi Dench, Richard Pasco, Norman Rodway, and Michael Williams in TN 2.4 is "Rehearsing the Text." --Ron Moyer, Univ. of South Dakota (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Buchanan Date: Thursday, 31 Oct 1996 8:10:24 -0500 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0779 Q: TN in Playing Shakespeare The episode is "Using the Text". I hesitate to use numbers as there was an episode (without Barton) filmed before episode #1. For quick reference see the book version (which he said he wouldn't write). It has extra material as well. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Young Date: Thursday, 31 Oct 1996 14:48:41 AST4ADT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0779 Q: TN in Playing Shakespeare The tape showing John Barton rehearsing a scene from TN is, if memory serves, titled "Rehearsing the Text". Alan Young (Acadia University) (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edna Z. Boris <104757.652@CompuServe.COM> Date: Thursday, 31 Oct 96 19:21:06 EST Subject: TN thanks Many thanks to all of you for the "Rehearsing the Text" title. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:58:25 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0782 Re: Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0782. Friday, 1 November 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 30 Oct 1996 22:42:41 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0778 Re: Politics (2) From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 31 Oct 1996 10:05:40 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0778 Re: Politics (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 30 Oct 1996 22:42:41 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0778 Re: Politics As I read the words "politics" and "political" in this debate, I'm beginning to believe that they have little relationship to the definitions found in the OED (which I checked today). I think "political" may here mean "culturally constructed." And since everything we do and have is "culturally constructed" in one way or another, it is a truism to say that Shakespeare's play are "political," i.e., culturally constructed. "Political" seems to be losing any precise reference, and it is used more as a rallying cry than as a meaningful category. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 31 Oct 1996 10:05:40 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0778 Re: Politics > To paraphrase Wm. James, perhaps "pure" reading of the texts is posssible, but > where on this moonlit and dream-visited planet is it to be found? That's not the point. To say that it something is never found in a "pure" state, with no admixture of anything else, is only to say that it participates in our world. It doesn't deny that such a thing (say, reading of the texts) *is*. To use an analogy, just because we never encounter pure oxygen, or straight lines, in nature, is not to deny that oxygen or straight lines *are*. Nor does it stop us from debating and exploiting them, if only as abstractions or ideals, in our various disciplines. Cheers, Sean. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 09:02:47 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0783 Production of The Borderers Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0783. Friday, 1 November 1996. From: Edward Gieskes Date: Thursday, 31 Oct 1996 09:08:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Production of The Borderers Willing Suspension Productions Presents: William Wordsworth's _The Borderers_ Set on the border of Scotland and England in the fourteenth century, this rarely performed gothic tragedy portrays the downfall of Mortimer, the idealistic young leader of a band of dispossessed landowners. An early Romantic play that anticipates the drama and internal psychology of the modern stage. Thursday, November 14: 8:30pm Friday and Saturday, November 15 and 16: 8pm Sunday, November 17: 2 and 8pm Tickets: $6 general admission, $5 students and seniors. All performances at The Boston Playwrights' Theatre at Boston University, 949 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA. For more information or reservations call 617/734-6360. Willing Suspension Productions is an acting company founded by graduate students in the English Department at Boston University in 1993 and is committed to producing rarely seen non- Shakespearean early modern drama. Our past productions include Thomas Middleton's _Revenger's Tragedy_,Ben Jonson's _Alchemist_, Thomas Kyd's _Spanish Tragedy_, and, most recently, Thomas Middleton's _Chaste Maid in Cheapside_. _The Borderers_ is the company's first foray into the drama of a later period. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 09:06:53 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0784 Re: Benjamin, Adorno; Lodgings in London Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0784. Friday, 1 November 1996. (1) From: Tai-Won Kim Date: Thursday, 31 Oct 1996 03:19:25 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0780 Re: Benjamin, Adorno (2) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 31 Oct 1996 12:33:49 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0776 Qs: Lodgings in London (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tai-Won Kim Date: Thursday, 31 Oct 1996 03:19:25 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0780 Re: Benjamin, Adorno >John Lee asks: > >I'd be very grateful if anyone could locate the phrase `the aestheticization of >politics' for me. I thought it was from Walter Benjamin, but perhaps it was >from Adorno. David Norbrook in his recent essay mentioned "aestheticization of politics" in relation to Kantorowicz and Burckhardt. Look at his article "The Emperor's New Body" in 10.2 (Summer 1996): 329-357, particularly 334 and note 11. And also his other essay, "Life and death of Renaissance Man" in 8.4 (Spring 1989): 89-110. Taiwon (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 31 Oct 1996 12:33:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0776 Qs: Lodgings in London If your students haven't already joined up, there is an International Youth Hostel organization, which has lodgings in London in various locations. They are cheap, usually with kitchen facilities (food is very expensive in London, and I highly recommend bringing your own coffee, as the beans there have an odd taste to them, by US standards), and the atmosphere at the Youth Hostels is quite collegial ifyou'll pardon the expresion. The HQ for Hostelling International is at: 733 15th Street, NW Suite 840 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 783-6161 Memberships are reasonable ($25? I forget) and you would receive a guide to Hostels available all over the world. THe Guides come with information about what each specific hostel has to offer. Good luck, Andy White Urbana, IL ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 16:05:53 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0785 Re: "Jazz Age" MUCH ADO; Hendiadys Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0785. Wednesday, 6 November 1996. (1) From: Robert White Date: Friday, 01 Nov 1996 08:53:11 -0400 (EDT) Subj: "Jazz Age" MUCH ADO (2) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Friday, 01 Nov 96 09:29:43 EST Subj: Re: Hendiadys (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert White Date: Friday, 01 Nov 1996 08:53:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "Jazz Age" MUCH ADO Perhaps the "jazz age" MUCH ADO that Jeff Nyhoff asks about was the Joseph Papp production out of New York. I remember that it was broadcast over PBS on April 8, 1974, the same night that Hank Aaron hit home run 715; I was switching channels, trying to watch both. I saw the film once after that, and it was a fine production. Even if Papp's is not the MUCH ADO that Jeff is thinking about, I'd be grateful to learn where I might get a copy. Bob White The Citadel whiter@citadel.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Friday, 01 Nov 96 09:29:43 EST Subject: Re: Hendiadys Hendiadys -- The crucial piece is George T. Wright's "Hendiadys in HAMLET" which won one of the annual awards for the best article printed in PMLA in the early 1980s?. My own small addition to the world of Shakespearean hendiadysology was an observation, following on Ted Wright's essay, about the Q1 - Q2 variants. Wright had observed that HAMLET has upwards of 65 instances of the figure while Shakespeare's other plays have 6 or 7 or so (and these are far more frequent than any incidence found in other plays in the period). I checked Wright's list of instances from Q2 against the Q1 text. Q1, by gosh, has only six or seven, and one of those is unique to it. Arguing against the piracy thesis, I said that the pirate/memorizer had an elegant filter that enabled him (her? them?) to find these figures, strip them out of the text, and zip back into their piracy a new one of their own inventing. Love them Pirates! My essay sits in Tom Clayton's anthology, Q1 NOW, THE HAMLET FIRST PUBLISHED, that came out a few years ago. Joy of the figures, Steve UrQuartowitz SURCC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 16:29:56 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0786 SSE in England and An Editor's Note Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0786. Wednesday, 6 November 1996. From: The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express Date: Friday, 1 Nov 1996 10:56:16 -0500 Subject: SSE in England The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express presents Julius Caesar, As You Like It, Henry V , and Comedy of Errors: November 25-30 at the Brixton Shaw Theatre, London, England Schedule: Monday 25 November As You Like It 7:30pm Tuesday 26 November Julius Caesar 7:30pm Wednesday 27 November Comedy of Errors 5:00pm Henry V 7:30pm Thursday 28 November Comedy of Errors 5:30pm Julius Caesar 7:30pm Friday 29 November Henry V 7:30pm Saturday 30 November Comedy of Errors 5:30pm As You Like It 7:30pm Prices: L 7 regular Phone 0171-274-6470 for advance L 6 students bookings. For info. in United States, L 5 groups call 1-540-434-3366 In addition, the SSE will be performing workshops at the International Globe Center. DATES: Monday 18 to Friday 22 November TIMES: 11:00AM-12:00NOON: One hour performance JC 12:30PM-1:00PM: Q & A 1:00PM-1:30PM: tour of the new Globe PRICE: L 5 per student including admission Globe exhibition. Call 1-540-434-3366 for information. [Editor's Note: Since I became department chair in early September, I have not had the opportunity to write up my notes from my summer vacation in Harrisonburg with the SSE. However, I would like to say briefly that I think that this year's company is the finest ensemble yet assembled by the SSE. I thoroughly enjoyed all four productions, and I wholeheartedly recommend them. --Hardy] ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 16:36:33 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0787 Re: Lodgings in London Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0787. Wednesday, 6 November 1996. From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Friday, 1 Nov 1996 09:16:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0784 Re: Lodgings in London This past summer I stayed at the Quaker International Centre and am glad to recommend it. It is a Georgian building, the interior pleasantly remodelled and very clean, located directly across the street from Dillons and the U of London student union. B&B rates are L28 single, L22 (each) double, and L18 4-bedded (each), with reductions for payment on arrival. The breakfasts featured wonderful breads. You can also reserve supper (vegetarian and vegan meals on request). It's a very short walk from the Goodge St. tube station, the British Museum, etc. If you're interested, the address is 1 Byng Place, London WC1E 7JH. Tel: 0171-387 5648 Fax: 0171-383 3722 Sara van den Berg University of Washington ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 16:38:25 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0788 Call for Papers Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0788. Wednesday, 6 November 1996. From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Saturday, 02 Nov 1996 08:51:46 -0800 Subject: Call for Papers CALL FOR PAPERS The Shakespearean Guild is seeking submissions for "The Elventham Journal" published in April. The theme for this year will be, "Shakespeare: Politics of Sex and Gender." Please send a 200-word abstract of thesis to: The Shakespearean Guild - The Elventham Journal 6366 Commerce Boulevard Rohnert Park, California 94928 Website: http://www.earthlink.net/~tsguild Abstracts must be received by January 31, 1997 for consideration. For more information, send e-mail to: tsguild@earthlink.net Please note that though acceptance of abstract does not guarantee publication in the journal, TSGuild reserves the right to consider them for future issues of TSGuild Quarterly newsletter. Thank you ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 16:42:01 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0789 Re: Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0789. Wednesday, 6 November 1996. (1) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 1 Nov 1996 21:55:54 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0782 Re: Politics (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 06 Nov 1996 13:01:47 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0778 Re: Politics (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 1 Nov 1996 21:55:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0782 Re: Politics As far as the assertion that works in the canon are political, the only thing that would disturb me would be the assumption that the political context was simple, and the values of the play easily discovered and categorized. It is useful, to my mind, to discuss the ways in which the Earl of Essex was eulogized (and his enemies damned) in Hamlet, but to say that the Dane was purely a political protest play would be difficult if not impossible to maintain. The same thing could be said of the Great Dionysia of Athens. We can come up with any number of instances in the Tragedies in which civic virtue and Athens as the beacon of liberty are themes. But we can just as easily see some of the basic civic values questioned (some of Sophocles and Euripides comes to mind). So, is it the assertion of politics, or the assertion of specific, possibly narrow politically based interpretation we are really talking about? Andy White Urbana, IL (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 06 Nov 1996 13:01:47 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0778 Re: Politics Tom Bishop writes > I profoundly agree that students should be encouraged to engage in > criticism of their own intellectual heritage. But Mr. Egan's account > of his class seems to show that what they are being taught to do > there is to "Ask Mr. Egan" to explain the history and politics of > the readings for this week. Are they researching for themselves "why > different models are valued at different times"? Well, no, they are not "researching", they are at the 'being taught' stage. But... > Is there, in fact, agreement about this? Or merely dogma? What might > help us reach agreement? What relevant "facts" might there be in the >question? That's the sort of thing being discussed, yes. > But Mr. Egan seems to me to be making a further claim, which I am > inclined to dispute. He seems to be claiming that "facts" can only > ever exist in relation to some framework of knowledge that > constitutes them, and not otherwise, that is that they have -no- > independent existence. Yep. That's where I stand. > To make...[a]... claim ...[to be]...a historical discipline, it > [Marxism] must be able to argue cogently that oppression > exists, that it can be identified and explained. Otherwise, > it can have no basis for imagining what might consitute an > improvement and hence developing a politics in the first place. > It must have a vision of human need, of how that need has been > and is being violated, and how it could better be answered. Absolutely not. The most inappropriate terms in this statement are: "vision", "human need", and "violated". Even "oppression" is a difficult one. There is a class war going on, and the rich have had some spectacular successes lately. These terms ("vision", "human need", and "violated") imply a perspective from within some neutral, non-combatant, class of thinkers. Many in the academy believe themselves to be in such a class, but it is a delusion. > I note that Mr. Egan does -not- dispute my claim that "all known > human societies practise the composition and exchange of narratives". I was toying with this response: What would constitute evidence for the existence of a human society that did not practice the composition and exchange of narrative? To say 'my child was eaten by a woolly mammoth' is to exchange a narrative, so your claim is that "all known human societies practise language". Since we don't confer the status of 'social' on non-communicators, this is a tautology, not a fact. If only that word "known" wasn't in there, we'd have an unproblematic tautology. But how am I suppose to validate what other people might know about things? No, we're definitely back into the realms of the contestable here. Is that a reasonable answer? Gabriel Egan========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 15:29:19 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0790 Shakespeare as Character Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0790. Thursday, 7 November 1996. From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Friday, 1 Nov 1996 22:57:28 -0500 Subject: Shakespeare as Character The new film, "Looking for Richard" also features a cameo role for Shakespeare, at beginning and at end, when he looks rather doubtful about what he has just witnessed. I think that's a nice touch, a becoming modesty. He also appears in the *Comedy of Errors* as performed (and videotaped) by the Flying Karamazov Bothers at Lincoln Center a couple of years ago. In this version, Shakespeare is the prompter. On another topic, Richard Knowles has an extensive discussion of language and prose vs. verse in *AYL* in his New Variorum edition, published about 20 years ago by MLA. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 15:33:46 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0791 Re: Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0791. Thursday, 7 November 1996. (1) From: C. David Frankel Date: Wednesday, 6 Nov 1996 16:41:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0789 Re: Politics (2) From: Paul Hawkins Date: Thursday, 7 Nov 1996 14:26:37 -0500 (EST) Subj: Politics and the Autonomy of the Aesthetic (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Wednesday, 6 Nov 1996 16:41:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0789 Re: Politics > Tom Bishop writes > > But Mr. Egan seems to me to be making a further claim, which I am > > inclined to dispute. He seems to be claiming that "facts" can only > > ever exist in relation to some framework of knowledge that > > constitutes them, and not otherwise, that is that they have -no- > > independent existence. To which Mr. Egan replied, > Yep. That's where I stand. I think there's a need to clarify what each person means by fact and what sorts of frameworks (if any) are necessary to understand them. Vico said that facts are made. I think that even when we talk about an apple falling from a tree we have a framework within which to make sense of that experience -- the idea of falling, notion of directions, causality, and other things. Most important, I think, is that even if we could agree that a single fact does not need a framework in order to be accepted as a fact, as soon as you try to connect two facts you are, in fact, employing a theory, and that theory will then shape your understanding of further facts which might, in turn, modify the theory, and so on. C. David Frankel frankel@arts.usf.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Thursday, 7 Nov 1996 14:26:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Politics and the Autonomy of the Aesthetic I would like to respond to the assumption that "everything is politics/sex/ideology" in many posts on this thread. I do not believe that "all is ideology" for a simple reason. If all is ideology, then that statement itself is a product of ideology and so cannot be true in any ordinary sense of the word "true", and if it's not true then there is no necessary reason for consenting to it. I believe that our ideology *influences* significantly most of our responses as biological organisms to the diverse stimuli of life on this planet and in the societies in which we find ourselves. I use the word "influence" rather than "constructs" or "enables" because I do not think that our responses are reducible to our ideology. Our physical environment also influences us, as does our genetic inheritance. Ideology may not be less important than these other influences, but it is absurd to grant it some automatic priority. And significantly, while ideology may influence our ontological, epistemological, ethical and other thinking, and while of course our ideology influences our political and everyday thinking and acting in myriads of ways, I do not believe that our ideology influences our aesthetic response. Aesthetic response is sublimely indifferent to ideology, it is indifferent to system, and it is even indifferent to thought or at least to thought content. Aesthetic response reckons only with the power of a work to make us feel something--anything--the thought, the thought-content of a work, and even the precise feeling it engenders, are irrelevant to its aesthetic power *as power*. A poem (or play, or a production of a play) can be brilliant and be disgustingly, completely, horribly racist (or sexist, or misogynist, or ethno-centric, or homophobic, or vulgar, or blind to the major political events of its time); and a work of art can have the most embraceable, inclusive and correct politics and still be not much good of a poem. "What matters only is the political position one takes in response to the work," Gabriel Egan wrote a few weeks ago. I think instead that Harold Bloom, as usual, gets it right: "To read in the service of any ideology is not, in my opinion, to read at all." Paul Hawkins ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 15:48:00 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0792 Re: "Jazz Age" MUCH ADO Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0792. Thursday, 7 November 1996. From: Jeff Myers Date: Thursday, 07 Nov 1996 13:29:02 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0785 Re: "Jazz Age" MUCH ADO >Perhaps the "jazz age" MUCH ADO that Jeff Nyhoff asks about was the Joseph Papp >production out of New York. I remember that it was broadcast over PBS on April >8, 1974, the same night that Hank Aaron hit home run 715; I was switching >channels, trying to watch both. I saw the film once after that, and it was a >fine production. Even if Papp's is not the MUCH ADO that Jeff is thinking >about, I'd be grateful to learn where I might get a copy. Is that the one with Sam Waterston as Benedick? If so, I don't remember it as being "Jazz Age." I do remember it, however, as an absolutely fantastic production. A few years ago I contacted the Papp people about showing it in class. They said it only existed in one copy (film) that was in very bad shape (they wouldn't guarantee it was in showable condition) and cost a lot of money to rent. When I asked why they didn't distribute it on videotape, they said they were worried about copyright infringement. So, they're letting it self-destruct. Makes sense, doesn't it? Jeff Myers ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 16:04:36 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0793 Q: Shakespeare Conference at CSU Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0793. Thursday, 7 November 1996. From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Thursday, 07 Nov 1996 09:09:28 -0800 Subject: Q: Shakespeare Conference at CSU Is there someone out there planning to attend the Shakespeare Conference at CSU Los Angeles this month? If you are, would you please e-mail me? As it turns out, I won't be able to attend and I would like to have some one to stand in for tsguild. This would only require the taking down of notes and the collecting of information, essays if available, etc. There is no compensation for doing this, but you will be acknowledged in our journal next month. If interested, please contact: tsguild@earthlink.net or mdmbard@aol.com Thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 09:23:12 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0794 Re: Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0794. Friday, 8 November 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 07 Nov 1996 15:45:38 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0791 Re: Politics (2) From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 07 Nov 1996 10:00:45 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0789 Re: Politics (3) From: Joseph M Green Date: Friday, 8 Nov 1996 00:06:57 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0791 Re: Politics (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 07 Nov 1996 15:45:38 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0791 Re: Politics C. David Frankel writes: > Vico said that facts are made. William Ingram makes a good distinction between "facts" and "data." A "datum" is uninterpreted; a "fact" is what we make of the datum. For example, an entry in a register is "datum." Thus, following this datum, we infer that Shakespeare was married: this is a "fact." So, Vico is correct: facts are made. But, if we are not extreme philosophical subjectivists, data really exist. There is a book, and in that book is an entry. If we can not agree that there are data, we might just as well withdraw into our selves and dream away the time as in the Golden World. And, by the way, no one has yet defined "politics." Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 07 Nov 1996 10:00:45 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0789 Re: Politics > Tom Bishop writes > > > I profoundly agree that students should be encouraged to engage in > > criticism of their own intellectual heritage. But Mr. Egan's account > > of his class seems to show that what they are being taught to do > > there is to "Ask Mr. Egan" to explain the history and politics of > > the readings for this week. Are they researching for themselves "why > > different models are valued at different times"? > > Well, no, they are not "researching", they are at the 'being taught' stage. > But... I don't know how Mr. Egan makes that distinction. Surely students learn by researching. I certainly encourage my own to do so. > > To make...[a]... claim ...[to be]...a historical discipline, it > > [Marxism] must be able to argue cogently that oppression > > exists, that it can be identified and explained. Otherwise, > > it can have no basis for imagining what might consitute an > > improvement and hence developing a politics in the first place. > > It must have a vision of human need, of how that need has been > > and is being violated, and how it could better be answered. > > Absolutely not. The most inappropriate terms in this statement are: "vision", > "human need", and "violated". Even "oppression" is a difficult one. There is a > class war going on, and the rich have had some spectacular successes lately. > These terms ("vision", "human need", and "violated") imply a perspective from > within some neutral, non-combatant, class of thinkers. Many in the academy > believe themselves to be in such a class, but it is a delusion. On the contrary: to posit a neutral position is absolutely necessary to the sort of moral commitment required of class (or any other kind of) warfare. People do not wish to die for one position amongst others, all of which are equally valid, and one of which is chosen on the arbitrary grounds of a belligerent's socio-economic position. They will struggle for a "truth" which is privileged above others. To assume a position of relativism is to engage in unilateral ideological disarmament. No wonder the right has staged some surprising victories lately, when the left assumes an epistemology which implicitly excludes the moral commitments that make successful ideological warfare possible. > What would constitute evidence for the existence of a human society that did > not practice the composition and exchange of narrative? To say 'my child was > eaten by a woolly mammoth' is to exchange a narrative, so your claim is that >"all known human societies practise language". Since we don't confer the status > of 'social' on non-communicators, this is a tautology, not a fact. It might be more fair to say that it's a tautological fact. Proof a priori, if you will. At any rate, you seem to be admitting that we may safely exclude certain purely theoretical posibilities from our discussion (e.g., a society which does not exchange narratives). There are, therefore, levels of otherness where the other would simply disappear, and which can be excluded from a discussion of the human. A reasonable definition of the human, then, can still be arrived at. If only that > word "known" wasn't in there, we'd have an unproblematic tautology. But how am > I suppose to validate what other people might know about things? No, we're > definitely back into the realms of the contestable here. Well, you could ask them, for instance. Besides, if we gloss "known" as "knowable" (i.e., within the realm of the social as defined) then we're back to the tautology, as you put it. Cheers, Sean. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Friday, 8 Nov 1996 00:06:57 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0791 Re: Politics Husserl critiqued the old historicism (the one that is now new) by pointing out that the assertion that it is impossible to tell a truth about history because one is a prisoner of one's own historical moment must mean that the assertion itself can't lay any claim to truth since it must be, like everything else, simply an arbitrary assertion. Without facts we have as much chance of knowing a truth about the past as a dog does of knowing where his master goes when he drives away each morning. It seems clear to me that the position that there are not any facts is mostly a consequence of wanting to do whatever one wishes to do though, in fact, it seems merely to be a guide for manners and not for action. Either, for example, slave children have labored to make this or that computer part or they have not. And it is interesting that Shakespeare again and again shows the tragic consequences of denying fact. It is also interesting that at least one early modern take on "politics" insists that everything is, precisely, not political. I'm not so sure that Shakespeare doesn't take the Augustinian view that history and politics are profane delusions when not considered under the aspect of the divine: one damn thing after the other as someone else said -- and meaningless except when? Henry V followed by Henry VI as we all know and I can't tell whether what is ultimately implied is providential history or simply history as butcher's block. And then there is the fact that S's histories only encounter fact occasionally and are fictions that have been guide to actions (The Duke of Marlborough declared that all the English history he knew he got from Shakespeare etc. etc.) But then there is the fact that at least one early modern take on fiction was that it represented wht is, in fact, real and what was "real" were those abstractions that, for us, seem most unreal. This is an assertion that everything is, in fact, spiritual and an instance of ideology -- but only from the stance one assumes when one has decided that everything is political and that, therefore, any contrary assertion is an ideological assumption that we are, somehow, uniquely qualified to demystify. It seems an assertion difficult to make when one denies facts while, at the same time, pointing to facts (those slave children) that demand a moral response. It seems likely that Shakespeare might not have considered many horrible conditions as conditions that could be improved by political means. He could, for example, have been constantly preoccupied with the consequences of poverty without ever considering a political solution to poverty-- which could be viewed as a consequence of the fall (by the sweat of your brow and all that). If you assume that there is such a thing as progress and improvement (as we are conditioned to assume) it is difficult to understand that someone could not recognize the possibilty of progress in the saeculum (the one damn thing after the other realm) and still have anything to "say" about poverty. Shakespeare does -- and just because what he has to say has very little to do with politics he can't be understood by those who assume that "everything is political." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 09:29:02 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0795 Re: "Jazz Age" MUCH Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0795. Friday, 8 November 1996. (1) From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 07 Nov 1996 16:43 ET Subj: SHK 7.0792 Re: "Jazz Age" MUCH (2) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Thursday, 7 Nov 1996 17:40:07 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0792 Re: "Jazz Age" MUCH ADO (3) From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Thursday, 7 Nov 1996 19:27:24 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0792 Re: "Jazz Age" MUCH ADO (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 07 Nov 1996 16:43 ET Subject: SHK 7.0792 Re: "Jazz Age" MUCH The _Much Ado_ directed by Joseph Papp is set in a thoroughly romanticized American small town at the turn of the last century, with the returning soldiers in Spanish-American War uniforms and the women with long swirly skirts and parasols. It features Sam Waterston as a Gary-Cooperesque Benedick and Kathleen Widdoes as a Claudette-Colbertish Beatrice; they play beautifully together, and except for an even-more-than-usually disastrous failure to make the Watch funny, the film as a whole is charming and fun. I agree that it would make a fine addition to the available filmography and wish somebody would go to the trouble to do what has been done with the Welles things, the Miller-Olivier _Merchant_, etc.--that is, get the necessary permissions and work out the necessary deals to re-release it on VHS. (If the film itself is in bad shape I bet there are some off-air or direct copies of it out there somewhere that could still produce a decent reissue.) Dave Evett (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Thursday, 7 Nov 1996 17:40:07 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0792 Re: "Jazz Age" MUCH ADO Jeff Myers says: >Is that the one with Sam Waterston as Benedick? If so, I don't remember it as >being "Jazz Age." I do remember it, however, as an absolutely fantastic >production. A few years ago I contacted the Papp people about showing it in >class. They said it only existed in one copy (film) that was in very bad shape >(they wouldn't guarantee it was in showable condition) and cost a lot of money >to rent. When I asked why they didn't distribute it on videotape, they said >they were worried about copyright infringement. So, they're letting it >self-destruct. Makes sense, doesn't it? I am not so sure about copyright infringement - but paying the actors for their performances would be pretty pricey. To distribute what sounds like an archive tape as a marketable video would involve paying all the actors in the production a large amount - especially a big name like Waterston. In Canada, the new Agreement between Canadian Actor's Equity Association and engagers clearly limits how archival tapes can be used, and this kind of distribution is the thing we are trying to stop. In a way, it makes plenty of "sense" and it doesn't sound like distributing it would make any "cents". However, maybe it _would_ make sense for them to transfer the film to video in the hopes of preserving their archive longer. But I always thought that videotapes have a very short shelflife, so maybe it is better off on film, stored in a cool dry place. Sincerely, Eric Armstrong (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Thursday, 7 Nov 1996 19:27:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0792 Re: "Jazz Age" MUCH ADO Regarding the Papp production of MUCH ADO (which I also fondly recall), Jeff Myers wrote: >A few years ago I contacted the Papp people about showing it in >class. They said it only existed in one copy (film) that was in very bad shape >(they wouldn't guarantee it was in showable condition) and cost a lot of money >to rent. When I asked why they didn't distribute it on videotape, they said >they were worried about copyright infringement. So, they're letting it >self-destruct. Makes sense, doesn't it? Might an e-mail and snail-mail campaign from SHAKSPERians be useful in convincing in convincing the Papp people that there is a viable commercial market for this tape? Is there an address or addresses we might write en masse to lobby that this marvelous production be returned to print? Yours in collective action, Douglas Lanier University of New Hampshire ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 09:32:05 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0796 Q: Stratford upon Avon Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0796. Friday, 8 November 1996. From: Edna Z. Boris <104757.652@CompuServe.COM> Date: Thursday, 07 Nov 96 16:45:20 EST Subject: Stratford upon Avon For a stay of several weeks in Stratford upon Avon to use the resources of the Shakespeare Centre, does anyone have suggestions on lodgings, food, approximate budget? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 09:33:32 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0797 Re: Shakespeare as Character Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0797. Friday, 8 November 1996. From: Steven Marx Date: Thursday, 07 Nov 1996 14:50:54 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0790 Shakespeare as Character He's also the prompter in the Olivier Henry V. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 09:48:33 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0798 Shakespeare and Ireland: A Conference at Trinity College Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0798. Friday, 8 November 1996. From: Dennis Kennedy Date: Friday, 8 Nov 1996 11:30:13 GMT Subject: Shakespeare and Ireland S H A K E S P E A R E A N D I R E L A N D A Conference at Trinity College, Dublin 21 to 23 March 1997 THURSDAY 20 MARCH 4.00 - 6.00 Registration: Arts Building, Trinity College, main concourse Note: all of the conference events will take place in the Ernest Walton Theatre (room 2039), Arts Building, unless otherwise indicated. FRIDAY 21 MARCH 9.15 Opening of Conference: welcoming address. 9.30 - 10.30 Plenary Speaker 1: Philip Edwards (University of Liverpool), 'Shakespeare, Ireland, Dreamland'. 11.00 - 1.00 Paper Session 1: Imperial Politics Richard Abrams (University of Southern Maine), ' "English Egypt": The Topicality of Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra' Patricia A. Cahill (Columbia University), ' "We Had Beene Safe in Ireland"; Masculinity, Captain Thomas Stukeley, and the Disciplines of War'. Bernhard Klein (Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universit=E4t, Frankfurt), 'Shakespeare and the Map of Ireland'. Emma Smith (All Souls College, Oxford) ' "These Irishmen, some say, are great dissemblers": Irishness as Disguise in Renaissance Drama'. 2.30 - 3.30 Plenary Speaker 2: Ania Loomba (Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi), 'Shakespeare and the Location of Culture'. 4.00 - 5.30 Paper Session 2: Colonial Perspectives Jacqueline Belanger (University of Kent at Canterbury), ' "The wonderful philosophic impartiality in Shakespeare's politics": Shakespeare, Coleridge and Ireland'. Elizabeth Fowler (Yale University), 'Scenes of Colonial Jurisprudence'. Thomas Herron (University of Wisconsin-Madison), ' "Where is Duncan's body?" Plantation Politics and Irish Saints in Shakespeare's Richard II and Macbeth'. SATURDAY 22 MARCH 9.30 - 10.30 Plenary Speaker 3: Terence Brown (Trinity College, Dublin), 'Yeats and Shakespeare'. 11.00 - 1.00 Paper Session 3: Theatre History and Ireland Chris Morash (Saint Patrick's College, Maynooth), 'Shakespeare and the Shape of Irish History'. Peter Raby (Homerton College, Cambridge), 'Harriet Smithson and the interpretation of Shakespearean roles'. Richard Schoch (University of Birmingham), ' "Chopkins Late Shakespeare": the Bard and his Burlesques, 1811-1859'. Patrick Tuite (University of Wisconsin-Madison), 'Parading Along the Parish Boundaries: Identifying Institutions of Erasure in the Theatre of Seventeenth Century Ireland'. 2.30 - 4.00 Paper Session 4: Coming to Terms with Shakespeare Margot Gayle Backus (St. John Fisher College, Rochester, NY), 'McGuinness and the Exorcists: Shakespearean Gothicism in Contemporary Irish Dramaturgy. Eugene O'Brien (University of Limerick), 'Patrick W. Shakespeare and the Politics of Irish Identity'. Kiernan Ryan (New Hall, Cambridge), ' "Dreaming of Things to Come": the Burden of the Bard in Wilde, Shaw and Joyce'. 4.30 - 6.00 Henry V Seminar (tabled papers) Jean Feerick (Univesity of Pennsylvania), 'Henry V and national identity'. Cherrie Gottsleben(Northeastern Illinois University), 'The Colonizing of Myth'. Ted Motohashi (Tokyo Metropolitan University), ' "Remember Crispin": Henry V and the Politics of Memory'. Andrew Murphy (University of Hertfordshire), 'Editing Ireland: Henry V '. SUNDAY 23 MARCH 9.30 - 11.00 Paper Session 5: Shakespeare, Canon and Postcoloniality Claudia W. Harris (Brigham Young University), 'The Tempest as Political Allegory'. Christina Hunt Mahony (Catholic University of America), 'Shakespeare and Dowden'. Ramona Wray (Queen's University, Belfast), 'Shakespeare and the Sectarian Divide: Teaching the English Renaissance in (Post) Post-Ceasefire Belfast'. 11.30 - 1.00 Contemporary Theatre Practice Session 1: Acting Shakespeare in and out of Ireland. 2.30 - 4.30 Contemporary Theatre Practice Session 2: Producing an Irish Shakespeare. A number of outstanding theatre professionals have accepted invitations to participate in these two sessions on contemporary theatre practice, subject to other commitments. It is not possible at this stage to confirm the names of those taking part. This academic programme does not include details of social activities, receptions, exhibitions and theatre events being planned in association with the conference. Registration Fee. The registration fee should be received by 1 March 1997, after which a late fee will apply. The fee should be sent by personal cheque or by banker's draft in one of the following currencies only, payable to "Trinity College Dublin", and posted with the slip below (by airmail, where appropriate) to: Norah Crummy, School of English, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland by 1 March 1997 after 1 March 1997 FULL FEE Irish 40 pounds 45 pounds Sterling 40 pounds 45 pounds US dollars 65 dollars 75 dollars STUDENT FEE* Irish 10 pounds 15 pounds Sterling 10 pounds 15 pounds US dollars 17 dollars 25 dollars *Students must send with the fee a photocopy of a current student card or other document certifying full-time enrollment in a college or university. Accommodation. The conference hotel is the new Bewley's Hotel, 19/20 Fleet Street, Dublin 2, a short walk from the front gate of Trinity. All rooms are equipped with private bath, telephone, TV, and tea/coffee-making facilities. Conference registrants should make their own bookings directly with the hotel NO LATER THAN 1 FEBRUARY 1997, quoting the reference "Trinity College". The special rates, which include full breakfast and taxes, are =A355 for a single room and =A375 for a double. Telephone +353 1 670 8122 Fax +353 1 670 8103 Because of the time of year no rooms in Trinity College will be available. Those who wish alternative accommodation may contact Dublin Tourism, who will book rooms in guest houses and other hotels. Website: http://www.visit.ie Telephone +353 1 605 7777 Fax +353 1 605 7787 email Dublin_Tourism@msn.com Arrival in Dublin. Taxis from Dublin Airport to city centre cost about =A312-14. Alternatively, a frequent express bus is priced at =A32.50, and deposits passengers a ten-minute walk from Bewley's Hotel and Trinity. Further information about the conference is available from Norah Crummy by telephone on +353 1 608 2301 or by fax on +353 1 671 7114. Postal address as below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Registration Form Must be received by 1 March 1997 to avoid the late fee Name Mailing Address Telephone Fax email address Institutional affiliation (for name badge) Cheque or draft enclosed, payable to "Trinity College Dublin" in the amount of ___________ (Students must include proof of status) Send to: =20 Norah Crummy School of English Trinity College Dublin 2 Ireland ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 10:14:04 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0799 Re: Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0799. Saturday, 9 November 1996. (1) From: Jeff Myers Date: Friday, 08 Nov 1996 13:43:51 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0794 Re: Politics (2) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Friday, 8 Nov 1996 17:23:55 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0789 Re: Politics (3) From: Norm Holland Date: Friday, 08 Nov 96 17:18:38 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0794 Re: Politics (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Friday, 08 Nov 1996 13:43:51 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0794 Re: Politics >And it is interesting that Shakespeare again and again shows the tragic >consequences of denying fact. Or the comic consequences. I'm thinking of Petruchio and Kate's encounter with Old Vincentio. Or is this even denying a fact? Are age and sex facts? Or are they data? Or should I have said gender? Or are they both social constructs? I.e., I mean age and sex (or gender); or should I have meant facts and data? And are the consequences comic or tragic? Or can we distinguish between the two? Somebody stop me before it's too late! Jeff Myers p.s.--Too late. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Friday, 8 Nov 1996 17:23:55 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0789 Re: Politics Well, we seem to be getting somewhere. Let's see if we can get further. Gabriel Egan will now take his stand on the following proposition, as phrased by me, but agreed to by him: that "facts" can only ever exist in relation to some framework of knowledge that constitutes them, and not otherwise, that is that they have -no- independent existence. At this point it may be useful to introduce a distinction along the lines that Bill Godshalk cites from William Ingram. I was going to put the same thing a slightly different way. To every act of knowing, there are two parties, the consciousness that knows and the object ("obiectum") that appears before that consciousness (this need not be a material thing, but more of that later). These are not, of course, equally active parties, and thought always takes place within thought. Yet this does not mean that the activity of knowing is not in important ways determined by the object of knowledge. Just because the object is epistemologically inert (though not inert in other ways) does not mean it does not objectively determine the adequacy of the knowledge that is proposed about it. Facts are made (facta), but they cannot be just made up however one chooses. And though one's assumptions about the object can indeed frame what can be known about it, this does not mean that some knowledges are more responsive to the objective and determining "real" character of the object than others. To take a simple example: the modern microbiological theory of the extinct disease smallpox is clearly superior to the older miasmal theory in responding to the objective "factual" character of the disease. We know this because smallpox no longer exists. Its objective character as a toxic response to infection by a microbe has been established through observation of actual cases and microbial study. Casting spells and sacrificing goats did not eradicate it. If this dispute is only over whether or not to call the determinations on our knowledge that its object exercises its "factual" character, then it has been trivial, and I apologize. But if Gabriel Egan wishes to claim that such objective determinations do not exist at all, then he must, at the very least, give serious thought to giving up his commitment to such Marxist concepts as "class war" (except as some sort of radical existential intuition, from God knows where). Marxism, if I understand it, is a set of historical claims and insights founded on a confidence in the objective and determining character of material conditions. Anything less than that is what Marx would have called an "idealism". Since being and thought reside always in the same place, in ourselves, the difficulties in their inter-relations can be great. That is why modern scientific disciplines insist on such rigorous protocols. In the humanities, the problems are immensely compounded, for the objects of knowledge are themselves artifacts of knowledge, marked by earlier thought, the traces of which we still may share. But in the face of these immense difficulties, the right response is not to give up the game altogether in confusion or despair. Just because "real" history and historical knowledge are not the same (whoever thought they were?) is no reason to deny any link between them. Just because thought takes place within the realm of thought (whoever thought otherwise?) is no reason altogether to dissever thought from the "real". In literary study, the difficulty is even further compounded by the increasingly mediated and meditated character of the materials. But even here, the "real" may rear its ugly head. This is one reason why I am interested in linguistics -- because it can note things about the matter out of which poetry is made that illuminate for me the manner in which it is made and hence the meanings made in it. And on this latter point, I note with pleasure that Mr. Egan and I seem to have reached agreement about a fact, though he may now contest it (well, -anything- is "contestable"; skepticism can never be finally refuted, but it's hardly a wise position for a Marxist to adopt). Mr. Egan writes: > To say 'my child was eaten by a woolly mammoth' is to exchange a > narrative, so your claim is that > "all known human societies practise language". But in fact languages can form many sentences that are -not- narrative in this way ("Fish like water"; "Good morning, Mr. Bishop"). And certain aphasias can destroy a speaker's ability to form narrative sentences -- thereby grossly impeding his/her ability to function socially. And yet the governing assumption here is that narrative sentences are more or less a definitively constitutive part of linguistic expression. (It -need- not be so in all symbolic systems. Mathematics and logic have no narrative dimension.) I think this is true: human langauges do -in fact- display an innate ability to construct narratives, even of such a basic kind as "I visited my mother yesterday, but now I'm back". It would appear that Mr. Egan thinks so too. I am glad. I've taken to talking too much about this. The Internet format threatens to impose on us the contemporary straitjacket of the "sound-bite". But the point is important, I think. Cheers, Tom P.S. Nor do I think it necessary to stand outside politics in order to have a vision of it, or of human need within it. Neither did Martin Luther King. Neither did Marx. But someone else can attempt a definition of politics, please. Tom Bishop Associate Professor of English Case Western Reserve University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Friday, 08 Nov 96 17:18:38 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0794 Re: Politics Here I go tangling with my friend Bill Godshalk again. About facts and data-- The psychologists tell us that even the most rudimentary data of our senses, such as shapes or colors, have already gone thru a good deal of brain processing, hence, interpretation. This does not mean that there are no data (or no facts), simply that they are always embedded in interpretation. As Hilary Putnam and George Lakoff point out, There is no god's-eye view. Only our own human perceptions of things (which, of course does not imply that the things "don't exist"--exactly the opposite, in fact). In the example given, the entry in a parish register, what is written is already interpreted, secretary hand interpreted, the letters interpreted, the language rendered as English or Latin as the case may be and so on. There is a _datum_, to be sure, but it has been arrived at by certain processes of interpretation. Likewise the fact. If one infers from the datum "John u. Mary," that Mary is the spouse of John, that is a fact (in the terms of our discussion). The distinction between datum and fact, then, is in the kinds of interpretation each is involved in. Commonly, we distinguish low-level interpretations from high-level interpretations, and it would make good usage sense to speak of data as involving low-level interpretations and facts as involving higher-level interpretations. But both have the same ontological and epistemoligcal status. Their difference is one of degree, not kind. Or so it seems to this reader-response critic and amateur psychologist. --Best, Norm Holland ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 10:17:24 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0800 Two ADOs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0800. Saturday, 9 November 1996. (1) From: John Cox Date: Friday, 08 Nov 1996 08:48:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: Branagh's Much Ado (2) From: Stephen Schultz Date: Friday, 08 Nov 96 12:41:08 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0795 Re: "Jazz Age" MUCH (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Friday, 08 Nov 1996 08:48:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Branagh's Much Ado Does anyone know if Branagh's *Much Ado* is available on videotape? John Cox cox@hope.cit.hope.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Schultz Date: Friday, 08 Nov 96 12:41:08 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0795 Re: "Jazz Age" MUCH The in question was directed by A.J. Antoon. Joseph Papp was the producer. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 10:22:07 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0801 Q: Cleopatra's Charms Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0801. Saturday, 9 November 1996. From: Pervez Rizvi Date: Friday, 8 Nov 96 13:50:17 GMT Subject: Antony and Cleopatra Years ago, before I read Antony and Cleopatra, I believed that Enobarbus' famous description of Cleo contained the lines: Age cannot wither her charms, Nor custom stale her infinite variety. On reading the play I discovered that the actual text, at 2.2.237, derived of course from the Folio, is: Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale Her infinite variety..... Note the absence of the word 'charms' in the Folio text. Did I only imagine the alternative version? Or does anyone know an edition of A&C which actually contains the lines I remembered? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 10:26:13 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0802 Re: Shakespeare as Character; Stratford upon Avon Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0802. Saturday, 9 November 1996. (1) From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Friday, 8 Nov 1996 13:08:25 -0500 Subj: Shakespeare as Character (2) From: David Skeele Date: Friday, 8 Nov 1996 11:55:33 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0796 Q: Stratford upon Avon (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Friday, 8 Nov 1996 13:08:25 -0500 Subject: Shakespeare as Character Shakespeare also appears as a character in David Williamson's soul-geldingly tedious play "Dead White Males', produced in Sydney, Australia in 1995. Its symbolism's elephantine quality can be judged from the opening, in which a university lecturer in 'literary theory' pulls a pistol and shoots the Bard. The author is said to be Australia's finest playwright. Terence Hawkes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Friday, 8 Nov 1996 11:55:33 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0796 Q: Stratford upon Avon >For a stay of several weeks in Stratford upon Avon to use the resources of the >Shakespeare Centre, does anyone have suggestions on lodgings, food, approximate >budget? I would suggest staying at a place called Grosvenor House. It is centrally located, quite reasonable in price, and is very nice. Unfortunately, I have neither phone number nor exact price available at the moment. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:04:37 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0803 Re: ADOs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0803. Monday, 11 November 1996. (1) From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 09 Nov 1996 10:09:07 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0800 Two ADOs (2) From: Kasey Hicks Date: Saturday, 9 Nov 1996 10:49:27 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: Papp's %Much Ado% (3) From: Shane Younts Date: Saturday, 9 Nov 1996 15:33:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0800 Two ADOs (4) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Sunday, 10 Nov 1996 21:14:38 -0500 Subj: Public Theatre *Ado* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 09 Nov 1996 10:09:07 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0800 Two ADOs Branagh's *Much Ado*, which is a considerable improvement on the play as it stood and can stand, is indeed available in its videotape version. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kasey Hicks Date: Saturday, 9 Nov 1996 10:49:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Papp's %Much Ado% Regarding the availability on tape of Papp's %Much Ado%, I recall watching it on tape (I think) in Prof. Lynn Gajowski's class at UC Santa Cruz back in '89 or so. Lynn (Hi Lynn! Zap me an email when you have the time), I know you're a sometimes reader of this list--do you recall where that tape(?) came from? It %is% a wonderful production, and it would be a shame for it to rot in some cannister. Kasey Hicks Doctoral Program in English Stanford University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shane Younts Date: Saturday, 9 Nov 1996 15:33:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0800 Two ADOs Yes, Branagh's Much Ado is available on video. I have a copy of it. I believe I purchases it through a video catalogue but it might be available in bookstores. Shane Ann Younts (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Sunday, 10 Nov 1996 21:14:38 -0500 Subject: Public Theatre *Ado* The TOFT (Theater on film and tape) collection at Lincoln Center has a videotape (3/4") copy of the Papp production of *Ado*, for viewing at the library only, by appointment (212-870-1641). The Shakespeare on Film Newsletter recorded over a number of issues the contents of the entire TOFT collection, and the Shakespeare Bulletin, which has incorporated SFNL, has recently updated the record. See "Archives" in the Index to SFNL, available (as are back issues) from the Editors, Shakespeare Bulletin, Lafayette College, Easton, PA 18042. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:09:38 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0804 Re: Shakespeare as Character Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0804. Monday, 11 November 1996. (1) From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Saturday, 9 Nov 1996 12:02:39 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0802 Re: Shakespeare as Character (2) From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 16:19:49 +1100 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0802 Re: Shakespeare as Character (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Saturday, 9 Nov 1996 12:02:39 -0500 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0802 Re: Shakespeare as Character Shakespeare may also be found in an Episode of Northern Exposure which, if I remember correctly, centers around Chris's (the radio D.J.'s) effort to pass an oral examination in which [New Criticism?] becomes a central concern. It's a brilliant episode. Shakespeare, unfortunately, is shot (in one of Chris's WW II-like dream sequences) while trying to defend himself from the New Critiques. Shakespeare, the poor man, ,mistakenly quotes Edgar Allen Poe in his death throes. I wish I had this episode on tape. Patrick Gillespie (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 16:19:49 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0802 Re: Shakespeare as Character I have to take exception to Terence Hawkes's statement that David Williamson, who put Shakespeare on stage in _Dead White Males_, is "said to be Australia's finest playwright". It may be true, strictly speaking, that some people have said this, but there are many more (especially the critics) who have said other things. This has led to famous fax-wars across the Australian continent as Williamson defends his position. It is indisputable that Williamson has been for many years the most prominent and consistently popular Australian playwright. His plays have saved many of the currently existing theatre companies from bankruptcy. He has written some very successful and funny plays, and can be wonderful at biting social satire. But he is in my opinion less successful at being solemn, and _Dead White Males_ was not well received critically, though like almost anything with his name on it, it did well at the box office. Adrian Kiernander Department of Theatre Studies University of New England ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:15:03 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0805 Re: Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0805. Monday, 11 November 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 09 Nov 1996 13:28:38 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0799 Re: Politics (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 09 Nov 1996 13:55:34 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0799 Re: Politics (3) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 09 Nov 1996 19:53:55 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0799 Re: Politics (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 09 Nov 1996 13:28:38 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0799 Re: Politics Norm Holland writes: >The >distinction between datum and fact, then, is in the kinds of interpretation >each is involved in. Commonly, we distinguish low-level interpretations from >high-level interpretations, and it would make good usage sense to speak of data >as involving low-level interpretations and facts as involving higher-level >interpretations. But both have the same ontological and epistemoligcal status. >Their difference is one of degree, not kind. I believe that Norm is correct, and he convinced me of this years ago when I read his book _The I_. For us humans there is no unmediated data. As Norm has pointed out, Dr. Johnson's kicking the rock proves two things: (1) there's something there, and (2) it has to be experienced and interpreted through our sensory systems. In my use of "data," I was referring to (1) and trying to isolate (1) from (2). Perhaps that's impossible. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 09 Nov 1996 13:55:34 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0799 Re: Politics "Politics initiates, ideology determines, and culture constructs all that humans think, do, and make." That seems (for me) to encapsulate the basic position of Cultural Materialists. And they seem to believe that this position is universally valid, for Shakespeare, for Socrates, for Confucius, for any human living at any time on this planet. When we were discussing human universals some time ago, I was given to understand that Cultural Materialists did not think such universal positions to be valid. For reasons unknown, many of us feel that it goes without argument that humans are dominated by politics, ideology, and culture. We find the nineteenth century concept of the "free and natural Shakespeare" to be totally incorrect, and we substitute the "political, ideological, and cultural Shakespeare." May I suggest that in 200 years our vision will seem as quaint and wrong-headed as the nineteenth century view? We seem to be in a time when personified abstractions have been given all the power. The trinity of politics, ideology, and culture does all that humans used to do, and, of course, history joins them in displacing our agency. The writer is replaced by an Author-Function. We no longer act; we are mere automata. Despair and die! Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 09 Nov 1996 19:53:55 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0799 Re: Politics Tom Bishop writes > Gabriel Egan will now take his stand on the following proposition, > as phrased by me, but agreed to by him: that "facts" can only ever > exist in relation to some framework of knowledge that constitutes > them, and not otherwise, that is that they have -no- independent > existence. I don't want to be awkward, but we really exhausted this one about a year ago on SHAKSPER, didn't we? Norm Holland's comment: > The psychologists tell us that even the most rudimentary data of our > senses, such as shapes or colors, have already gone thru a good deal > of brain processing, hence, interpretation. This does not mean that > there are no data (or no facts), simply that they are always embedded > in interpretation. strikes me as useful, however. Tom Bishop again: >I think this is true: >human langauges do -in fact- display an innate ability to construct narratives, >even of such a basic kind as "I visited my mother yesterday, but now I'm back". >It would appear that Mr. Egan thinks so too. I am glad. A symbolic system in which a narrative cannot be constructed would not be a language, so again this fact ("languages do -in fact- display an innate ability to construct narratives") is a tautology. A symbolic system limited to mere assertion (eg "fish like water", or "e=mcc") or denotation ("LET X = WINDSPEED", or "RED = STOP, GREEN = GO") is not a language, is it? Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:21:54 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0806 Qs: Web Sites; TN; Lear; Help Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0806. Monday, 11 November 1996. (1) From: Lisa B. Martin Date: Saturday, 09 Nov 1996 12:39:46 -0500 Subj: Request info for bibliography of Renaissance poetry web pages (2) From: Matthew W Mitchell-Shiner Date: Saturday, 9 Nov 1996 17:32:03 -0800 (PST) Subj: Productions of 12th night (3) From: Lawrence Jay Dessner Date: Sunday, 10 Nov 1996 13:42:40 -0800 Subj: lear query (4) From: Mikko Nortela Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 10:46:07 +0200 (EET) Subj: Could somebody help! (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa B. Martin Date: Saturday, 09 Nov 1996 12:39:46 -0500 Subject: Request info for bibliography of Renaissance poetry web pages A graduate student in English at Western Carolina University, I am presently doing research for my thesis--an annotated bibliography of on-line (Internet) resources available for the study of English Renaissance poetry. The bibliography's cardinal focus is listing and annotating primary and secondary Internet resources, in English, available for the poetry of Shakespeare, Sidney, and Spenser. In addition, the bibliography describes the availability of other key Internet research aids, such as on-line editions of The Oxford English Dictionary and The Bible. It omits works that are static in nature, such as cd-rom editions of Shakespeare's works, focusing instead solely on the Internet's dynamic sites. Though there are several literary overviews already on the Internet, such as those sited on the Starting Point for Literary Research available http://www.kingsu.ab.ca/~angela/literary.html, there is none, thus far, that focuses only on the poetry of these three great Renaissance poets and related secondary sites. In order to produce a bibliography that is as complete as possible, I am soliciting information regarding any obscure sites that you might be familiar with or favorite sites that you feel should be included in this bibliography. Any pertinent information will be greatly appreciated. Please e-mail responses to lbmartin@interpath.com. Thank you, Lisa B. Martin (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew W Mitchell-Shiner Date: Saturday, 9 Nov 1996 17:32:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Productions of 12th night I am currently in pre-production for 12th night, which I will be Assistant Directing. I am looking for personal or historical ideas in which to cross cast (some of the male parts to be played by females.) This is being done in a university setting, with 40+ females in the program, and this quarter there are only three scripted female roles. So, if any one has any ideas for this, please drop me a line. I am weary of offering any unproved suggestions, since gender is such a important issue to this text. Matthew Mitchell-Shiner email: umitcm00@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lawrence Jay Dessner Date: Sunday, 10 Nov 1996 13:42:40 -0800 Subject: lear query In the third act, scene 7 of King Lear, the Bantan/Bevington edition has an editor's stage direction at the moment Gloucester's first eye is removed. "Cornwall . . . grinds [it out] with his boot," it says. That strikes my class and myself as absurd, and we wonder when this stage direction was first suggested, and by whom. Any help would be appreciated. Larry Dessner, University of Toledo (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mikko Nortela Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 10:46:07 +0200 (EET) Subject: Could somebody help! Dear SHAKSPERians, For years I have been looking for for a copy of George Brandes' book _William Shakespeare_ (the Oxford edition, London 1898), but haven't found it. Does any of you have a copy that he/she could sell to me? Please, do help me - this book is a necessity to my studies! Mikko Nortela ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:24:19 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0807 Re: Cleopatra's Charms Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0807. Monday, 11 November 1996. From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 09 Nov 1996 14:11:34 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0801 Q: Cleopatra's Charms If these lines were ever read as verse --an astoundingly rare phenomenon--they would be yet another example of the playwright's superior management of surprise and augmentation: Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale [the line-ending pauses, rendering the first meaning "Age can neither wither nor stale her. Then Enobarbuis thinks of what he has said, and his emotions augment his thoughts as his brain in response finds a grammatical object for the two verbs:} Her infinite variety. Just like my typing...infinite variety. Harry Hill ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 21:56:52 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0808 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0808. Monday, 11 November 1996. (1) From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 10:30:39 -0500 Subj: Re: Twelfth Night Productions (2) From: David Hale Date: Monday, 11 Nov 96 12:21:57 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0806 Qs: TN (3) From: Jodi Clark Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 14:41:18 +0200 (IST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0806 Qs: Twelfth Night Cross Casting (4) From: Harry Teplitz Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 15:14:37 -0800 (PST) Subj: Twelfth Night (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 10:30:39 -0500 Subject: Re: Twelfth Night Productions Matthew Mitchell-Shiner writes: >I am currently in pre-production for 12th night, which I will be Assistant >Directing. I am looking for personal or historical ideas in which to cross >cast (some of the male parts to be played by females.) This is being done in a >university setting, with 40+ females in the program, and this quarter there are >only three scripted female roles. > >So, if any one has any ideas for this, please drop me a line. I am weary of >offering any unproved suggestions, since gender is such a important issue to >this text. Why be wary of untested ideas? Why not take the bold leap and make a little theatre history yourself? And regarding taking untested suggestions from others, I've found that suggestions from lit-crit types who have never set foot in a theatre can be tremendously helpful, as long as one can find a way of translating them into dramatic action. So I would say listen to absolutely everyone on the list, whether or not they have actually directed gender-bending TNs--I am sure you'll find something valuable. Great luck on the production--I'm sure you're going to have fun with it. Sincerely, David Skeele (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Hale Date: Monday, 11 Nov 96 12:21:57 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0806 Qs: TN I've seen two recent productions which had additional roles for women. A couple of years ago the Thousand Islands Playhouse in Gananoque, ON, cast Feste and Fabian as women's parts. Feste, costumed as leftover from "Cabaret," was not very good, but "Mrs. Fabian" was quite delightful, raising the question why Sir Toby married Maria instead. Many of us who were at the Shakespeare Congress in Los Angeles in April saw TN with Malvolio played by a woman, part of the production's being an allegory about gays in the military. The casting of Toby and Maria was reversed, but that wouldn't add more women to the cast. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jodi Clark Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 14:41:18 +0200 (IST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0806 Qs: Twelfth Night Cross Casting I was in a production of Twelfth Night last year in which I was cast as Malvolio. Being a woman, we had the quandry of whether I was playing him as him or her or just as an androgenous person. In the end, I was playing this androgenous person, which actually worked very well. We also had Fabian, Feste, and Sebastian all played by women. Sebastian was the most interesting as in the end it would seem the poor actress would be having a multiple personality disorder. But she pulled it off very well with a little bit of switching hats and such. I well understand your leariness about cross-casting this as making the wrong choice can bring up social issues that really aren't in the play. This production happened at Marlboro College. If you would like more details about it, please feel free to let me know. Sincerely, Jodi Clark Emerson College Theatre Education (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Teplitz Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 15:14:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Twelfth Night I am writing in response to Matthew Mitchell-Shiner's inquiry about cross- casting in Twelfth Night. In 1993, I directed a student production of the play with five men and the rest women. I decided not to cross cast Orsino, Sebastian, Antonio, Andrew and Toby. This means that I did cross Malvolio, Feste, Fabian, Curio, all the courtiers's, the Sea Captian, the priest, etc. The main problem with a heavily female cast is deciding whether the cross-cast roles are women playing male characters or whether the characters should be switched to female. I found that in many cases ambiguity on this issue was acceptable, and in the case of Feste even advantageous. An androgenous fool can serve to highlight the gender reversals in the play. She can also have a relationship with the other character that a male might not. I did strive to make Malvolio a male character however. The women playing the role had extensive dance background and was able to bring to it a physicality that was fairly convincing. I had stronly considered cross-casting Antonio. I fully believe that he is in love (sexually, romantically, etc.) with Sebastian, and I thought a female actor might make this clearer (as is often done with another Antonio in Merchant of Venice). In the end, I decided it was important that it be a male in love with Sebastian, to highlight the homoerotic undercurrent in Orsino/Caesario and Olivia/Caesario scenes. I think you would be perfectly justified, however, in having a female Antonio (Antonia?) or a women playing the male Antonio. Overall, Twelfth Night is a great choice for a heavily cross-cast play. It can be a triumph both in terms of theatrical achievement and thematic concerns. If Olivia believes Caesario is male, why shouldn't the audience believe a female actor in a male role? The group I directed, the UCLA Shakespeare Group, is dedicated to proving that any actor, male or female, can play any role. In fact, I would be facinated to see a production that was entirely cross-cast -- that is three men in the women's roles and women in all the men's roles. I'd be very interested to hear what decisions you make, and hope you find the play as rewarding as we did. Sincerely, Harry Teplitz UCLA Shakespeare Reading & Performance Group ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:04:39 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0809 Re: Branagh ADO, Other Videos, and WT Query Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0809. Monday, 11 November 1996. (1) From: Jesus Cora Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 17:09:10 UTC+0100 Subj: SHK 7.0800 Two ADOs (2) From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 15:32:15 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0803 Re: ADOs (3) From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 19:34:25 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0803 Re: ADOs (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 17:09:10 UTC+0100 Subject: SHK 7.0800 Two ADOs Dear John Cox, Indeed, Branagh's *Much Ado* is on video, at least on this side of the Atlantic. In Spain it has even been sold at kiosks and newsagents' as a part of a collection of videos designed to improve foreign language skills. The film is sold in the original English version with subtitles in English so that students can relate the sounds to the written words. Terrific material for students of English and English literature as a foreign literature! I have a copy of this and it really helps students! (Perhaps it would be useful for those 'native speakers' that have problems with different accents). I take for granted that the video is easily available in the UK, VHS format, PAL colour, of course. However, the releaser escapes me right now (Columbia- Tri-Star?) And now for my own question. Does anyone know if Branagh's *Othello* and McKellen's *Richard III* are available on videotape? I have the Royal Shakespeare Company version with McKellen as Iago, which I plan to show my students this year, but I would also consider purchasing Branagh's in order to show something really "modern" (Does it happen to you that stu- dents tend to reject Olivier's versions? His *Hamlet* is not that bad. Maybe this happens on account of its being a B&W film?!). Ok, and now for something totally different. Being somewhat sick of so much metacriticism and navel-watching I would like to redirect the attention of my fellow SHAKSPEReans to the works of the Bard, if you allow me to do so (pray ye!). I have noticed that in *The Winter's Tale* there is a curious relationship between the female characters: Hermione, Paulina and Perdita and references to devils and witchcraft. Hermione jokes on the connection between women an devils in her courtly conversation with Polixenes and Leontes. When Paulina defends the reputation of Hermione, she is threatened with being burnt at the stake by Leontes. She defends herself and says that accusation and threat is close to tyranny. She even holds that it is more heretic he who lights the fire than the one who dies in it. Later, when Polixenes opposes the love relationship between Florizel and Perdita, he accuses the latter of being an 'enchantment'. Now, shall we see this as a topical reference to the witch-hunts in Lancashire and other parts of England? Are Paulina's words a mild, though risky, rebuke to King James I? Has anyone written about this aspect of the play? I think it is quite "modern" of Shakespeare to show victimised women in connection with false accusations of witchcraft by crazed men who do this as a way of enforcing their authority? Yours, J. Cora (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 15:32:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0803 Re: ADOs Back in 1988-1991, when I taught the senior seminar in Shakespeare at UC Santz Cruz, the only way I was able to get my hands on a copy of the Antoon/Papp cinematic text of *Much Ado* was to borrow it from the film collection at UC Berkeley. Hugh Richmond, if I remember correctly, was my contact there. But see Bernice Kliman's message of 10 Nov. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 19:34:25 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0803 Re: ADOs I bought a copy of Branagh's Much Ado through Blockbuster at a very reasonable price in Chicago. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:13:51 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0810 Re: Staging Gloucester's Blinding Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0810. Monday, 11 November 1996. (1) From: Michael Friedman Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 16:52:53 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0806 Qs: Lear (2) From: Ellen Summers Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 17:12:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: RE: SHK 7.0806 Qs: Lear (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 16:52:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0806 Qs: Lear Larry, I'm sure that other members of this list will point it out, but the text itself supports Bevington's editorial stage direction at 3.7.69 (in my Signet edition): "Upon these eyes of thine I'll set my foot." I'm not sure what it is about this action that strikes you and your students as absurd. The last time I saw it performed in accordance with the text, Gloucester was bound to a chair with his back to the audience. At Cornwall's line, two servants tipped the chair over backward so that Gloucester's head was resting on the floor, and Cornwall ground the eye out as Bevington describes. Surely, however, there are other ways in which the sequence could be performed. Michael Friedman University of Scranton (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ellen Summers Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 17:12:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: SHK 7.0806 Qs: Lear To Larry Dessner, on staging the blinding of Gloucester: Cornwall may find it easier to put his foot against Gloucester's eye if Gloucester's head is lowered until it is nearly touching the floor. This may be easily accomplished on stage if Gloucester, tied to the chair in which he is seated, is pulled down by the chair's back by Cornwall, who then may find it convenient to lift his boot up to Gloucester's eye. If I remember correctly, Peter Brook's Cornwall wore enormous spurs on his boots, making this moment even more extravagantly cruel. The English professor in me wants to add that such a mode of staging helps to crystallize the motifs of inversion and of atomization of parts of the body that run through _Lear_. Hope this helps. Ellen Summers Hiram College ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:18:30 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0811 Shakespeare CD-ROMs/RSC Midsummer Night's Dream Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0811. Monday, 11 November 1996. From: Stephen Neville Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 09:04:29 -0500 Subject: Shakespeare CD-ROMs/RSC Midsummer Night's Dream Christmas is coming and I am asking for a Complete Works of Shakespeare on CD-Rom. Could some-one advise me as to what is on offer, and the merits of one version in preference to another? I went to the RSC's production of _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ at Stratford on Avon on November 9th. It was wonderful. It is now going on tour. SHAKSPERIANS might like to note the following dates : 1996 - Great Britain 12-16 November Theatre Royal, Newcastle 19-23 November New Theatre, Cardiff 26-30 November Festival Theatre, Edinburgh 3-7 December Theatre Royal, Bath 10-14 December Theatre Royal, Plymouth 1997 17 January - 8 February Ginza Saison Theatre, Tokyo, Japan 15-18 February The Academy of Performing Arts, Hong Kong 26 February - 8 March His Majesty's Theatre, Perth, Australia 13-15 March Festival Theatre, Adelaide, Australia 19 March - 5 April The Playhouse, Melbourne, Australia 9-12 April State Opera House, Wellington, New Zealand 16-20 April Aoeta Centre, Auckland, New Zealand 24 April - 17 May Capitol Theatre, Sydney, Australia 21-25 May Gold Coast Arts Centre, Australia Regards Stephen Neville sjnevil@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:21:14 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0812 Book Announcement Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0812. Monday, 11 November 1996. From: Yashdip Bains Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 11:58:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Book Announcement My book, "The Contention and The True Tragedy: Shakespeare's First Versions of Henry VI, Parts 2 and 3," is available now in hardback from Public Relations Officer, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Rashtrapati Nivas, Simla 171 005, India (Price: $14.00, including postage by air). I argue that Shakespeare wrote "The Contention" and "The True Tragedy" first and later revised and changed them into the second and third parts of a trilogy about King Henry VI. I suggest that "The Contention" and "The True Tragedy" are authentic texts from Shakespeare's early career in the theatre, and the multiple scripts give us unusual insights into his evolution as a playwright. Also still available from the same publisher is my earlier study, "Making Sense of the First Quartos of Romeo and Juliet, Henry V, The Merry Wives of Windsor, and Hamlet" ($8.00, including postage by air). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:33:25 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0813 Re: Stratford; Charms; Web Sites Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0813. Monday, 11 November 1996. (1) From: Jesus Cora Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 17:14:39 UTC+0100 Subj: SHK 7.0802 Re: Stratford upon Avon (2) From: Scott Shepherd (Scott Shepherd) Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 13:59:30 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0807 Re: Cleopatra's Charms (3) From: Michael Mullin Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 16:46:41 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0806 Qs: Web Sites (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 17:14:39 UTC+0100 Subject: SHK 7.0802 Re: Stratford upon Avon >For a stay of several weeks in Stratford upon Avon to use the resources of the >Shakespeare Centre, does anyone have suggestions on lodgings, food, approximate >budget? I would suggest staying at a place called Grosvenor House. It is centrally located, quite reasonable in price, and is very nice. Unfortunately, I have neither phone number nor exact price available at the moment. Dear SHAKSPEReans, Those of you who would like to go to Stratford can know what the RSC has on offer beforehand if you join their mailing list. It costs about 10 pounds sterling and they send you their season programs both at their theatres at Stratford and London (and info. on tours abroad). I find it quite useful. I haven't got the contact address with me right now. I'll post it in the near future. All the best. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd (Scott Shepherd) Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 13:59:30 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0807 Re: Cleopatra's Charms In Harry Hill's "as verse" Enobarbus, linebreak equals thoughtbreak equals pause. New line equals afterthought. It's easy to imagine how tedious this might become in a long heavily enjambed speech like say the dagger hallucination in Macbeth (see below). William Shatner comes to mind. Or Fiona Shaw's incessantly hesitant Richard 2 last year. Some who lament the misunderstanding of verse differently misunderstand, endorsing an alleged proper speaking of it and thinking I think that verse when it's happening should be recognizable as verse whereas isn't it more effective if it operates obscurely--not tearing a passion into tensyllable tatters but imparting a rhythm and impetus more felt by the listener than acknowledged? Shakespeare got older and in most opinions better by abandoning endstops and obvious rhyme, making meter a more and more occult ingredient of his whole dramatic effect, eg: It is the bloody business which informs Thus to mine eyes. Now o'er the one half world Nature seems dead and wicked dreams abuse The curtain'd sleep, witchcraft celebrates Pale Hecate's offerings, and wither'd Murder, Alarum'd by his sentinel the wolf Whose howl's his watch, thus with his stealthy pace, With Tarquin's ravishing strides towards his design Moves like a ghost. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Mullin Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 16:46:41 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0806 Qs: Web Sites The Shakespeare Globe USA website continues to grow. We too are looking for more internet links and would be grateful for any suggestions. Please open location: http://ampere.scale.uiuc.edu/shakespeare Michael Mullin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:37:12 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0814 Romeo and Juliet ROCK Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0814. Monday, 11 November 1996. From: Jimmy Jung Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 1:35pm Subject: Romeo and Juliet ROCK I think if you are really believe that Shakespeare has meaning in our time, then you ought to go see this flick, then again waiting for the video might be okay too. Since I already shared my pre-release enthusiasm with yall, I guess I also ought to share the quieter aftermath. Some of the reviews have compared the movie to "Die Hard" and trust me, the first 20 minutes will spin your head in a confusing mishmash of gun play, camera cuts, explosions, and dialogue. Familiarity with the text may even be a disadvantage. I kept hearing lines that I knew, but they were buried under the burst of 9mm weapon fire. But you gotta respect the attempt to make R&J a "here and now" story, and this attempt does not dissuade me from my excitement about trying to yank a "classic" story abruptly into the 1990's? How successful was this version? Mediocre at best. Perhaps the most disconcerting aspect for me was the contrast between the language and the scene. This version keeps all the "thou's," "thy's" and "swords." Normally, I'm a purest for the text; but when Tybalt points a gun the size of Dirty Harry's at you and then says something about his sword, I get confused. I think just a little bit of tailoring might have made a more comfortable fit into this MTV mold. On the plus side, the leads were great. Everytime I see the play, I walk away thinking Romeo's a dork. However, DiCaprio manages to pine for Rosalind, fall in love at first sight, climb a wall, get married, kill a guy and himself, with the clarity of passion that the part calls for. DiCaprio and Dane also do the best job with the language. They have to say a lot of odd things for a movie in the 90s and their delivery is the only part that seems to pull you into to their love expressed as poetry. (Everyone else's seems to distract). Do they annunciate correctly for a Shakespearean play? I haven't a clue. When I saw the trailer, you see Romeo on his knees screaming "Juliet." and I remember laughing and thinking "Brando yelling 'Stella,' or Stallone yelling 'Adrian'; yea, that's what Shakespeare had in mind." But hey, it works. The Saturday crowd at 9PM was more youthful than I expected and as I was walking out of the theater I did here one guy say, "any idea what we just saw?" On the other hand I also saw a young lady say, "wow, that was beautiful." and I suppose, more than anything, I want to know what the senior high crowd thought, if you hear anything, let me know. jimmy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:40:23 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0815 Re: Interpretation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0815. Monday, 11 November 1996. From: Thomas Bishop Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 14:30:03 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0805 Re: Interpretation Bill Godshalk and Norman Holland raise some interesting points. Since we cannot put the objects of our perception actually in our thoughts, we humans, assisted by God Biology, have evolved ways of representing them for thought. My visual cortex (and most other people's) is very good at distinguishing edges, changes in contour, color and so forth, particularly where faces are concerned. Neurology can explain this process in detail. I suppose one could call this hard-wired neurological activity "interpretation", but I'm reluctant to use that term because I find it conflates it with a much more deliberate and conscious activity which seems to me qualitatively different. I'm inclined to want to say that "interpretation" proper arises when there is a puzzle, question or dispute (this can be at any stage of perception), but that failing any puzzle what we have is better named "perception". I do not "interpret" my mother's face at the breakfast table, unless I'm unsure how she's feeling today and want to know. Otherwise I merely perceive and recognize my mother. To say otherwise goes against the grain of what I feel I am doing. On the question of language and narrative, I can't concede that their relation is merely tautological, except in the same way that statements like "Humans are mortal" or "Alcohol contains carbon atoms" or "Horses are quadrupeds" are. Are aphasics with no narrative capacity no longer capable of language? We would say they had a reduced capacity for it surely, but not that they no longer had it altogether. If we deny that Basic is a sort of language (a computer langauge) what are we to make of our impulse to call it one in the first place? Were we wrong? Joking? Stupid? It may indeed be that humans must first learn language in order to be able to understand narrative, but if so, their relation is far from an empty tautology. It tells us something about the history of homo sapiens as an organism perceiving its world. Perhaps we have been over this ground before. But some of us never learn. :-) Excuse me, I must go dig my car out of all this snow. Tom ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:43:36 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0816 Rhetorical Resources Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0816. Monday, 11 November 1996. From: Eric Armstrong Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 15:42:58 -0500 Subject: Rhetorical Resources Dear Shakesper-ians Thanks to reading the discussion on henDIadys, I have begun thinking about rhetorical devices and/or figures. I am trying to develop some sort of resource for learning Rhetorical devices. My hope is that understanding the Schemes and Tropes used in Renaissance writing and use of rhetoric will help actors to use them as they discover them in both classical texts, where they are used with intent and modern texts, where they may be lurking, unbeknownst to actor, playwright... I imagine that these devices are part of good, clear thinking rather than just party pieces to make a speech "showy". So I am looking for great examples of each and every one of these devices, in the hope that I might develop some sort of curriculum (maybe even a web page?) to help others learn a/ what each scheme or trope looks like and b/ how to USE a certain scheme or trope in an improvisation manner and c/remember the names (and pronumciations) of the silly things. So far I am looking at Gert Ronberg's _A way with WORDS: The language of English Renaissance literature_ ISBN 0-340-49307-0 as a great source of non-Shakespearean examples, and pronunciations of each term. Other recommendations? Does someone know enough Latin &/or Greek to help me understand why Ploce is called Ploce (and sometimes Ploche) and whether it rhymes with Ho-Chi (min) or not? Do people teach these things to students, or do they leave them to the students to figure out? When do they teach them (at what level)? Have you REALLY got all those terms memorized, or do you have to look up Parison or Isocolon each time you think of them...? I have heard of other terms for some poetic devices - things like "cutted comma" or "ladder"... does anyone know who made those things up? And are they really useful? Or are they MORE useful, more memorable than the parisons, isocolons and antimetaboles of this field? To put it more bluntly, HELP! I would love to hear some suggestions as to where I might turn, where I should direct my students... Thanks in advance, eric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 06:57:05 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0817 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0817. Tuesday, 12 November 1996. (1) From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 13:38:53 +1100 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0808 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting (2) From: Jeff Myers Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 02:45:06 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0808 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 13:38:53 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0808 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting Ariane Mnouchkine started work on an all-female 12N as part of her Shakespeare cycle in the early 80s, partly to make better use of the women in the Theatre du Soleil who were being under-utilised in the productions of Richard II and 1 Henry IV; but after relatively lengthy rehearsals she abandoned it because it disrupted the significance of sexual difference in the script. She then recast the play largely without any cross-gender casting, the one trace of the previous attempt being Clementine Yelnik as a diminutive and rather androgynous Sir Andrew. Adrian Kiernander Department of Theatre Studies University of New England (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 02:45:06 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0808 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting About 20 years ago I saw a very modest production in which Sir Andrew was played by a young woman. It was a delightful production in general, which I enjoyed very much. I seem to have enjoyed plays much more then than I do now, for this is the second production of that era that I've praised here in the last few days. In any event, the cross-casting was very illuminating in Andrew's interaction with Viola. Jeff Myers ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 07:01:08 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0818 Re: Rhetorical Resources Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0818. Tuesday, 12 November 1996. (1) From: Bob Williams Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 21:03:20 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0816 Rhetorical Resources (2) From: Joanne Woolway Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 08:43:35 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0816 Rhetorical Resources (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Williams Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 21:03:20 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0816 Rhetorical Resources My book does not have Shakespearian examples but it's a good reference and one of the few that deals with this subject at all. It has the further advantage of simplicity and clarity. Ploce, according to my book, is pronounced PLO-see. And the book is: The Complete Stylist by Sheridan Baker 2nd Edition Crowell 1972 Hope this helps, Bob Williams (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Woolway Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 08:43:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0816 Rhetorical Resources For Eric Armstrong -- I find R.A. Lanham's _Handlist of Rhetorical Terms_ useful for teaching students about devices in Shakespeare. It has definitions of terms and examples and also a section for identifying what you think is a rhetorical device when you don't know what it's called. Joanne Woolway ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 07:06:48 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0819 Re: Romeo and Juliet ROCK Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0819. Tuesday, 12 November 1996. (1) From: Jodi Clark 303971 Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 22:52:51 +0200 (IST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0814 Romeo and Juliet ROCK (2) From: David J. Kathman Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 23:57:14 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0814 Romeo and Juliet ROCK (3) From: David R. Maier Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 00:15:20800 Subj: Romeo and Juliet ROCK (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jodi Clark 303971 Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 22:52:51 +0200 (IST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0814 Romeo and Juliet ROCK I recently saw Romeo and Juliet as well with a crowd who had entirely polar reactions. I loved it. I loved that it existed. I cried at the end not because the story touched my heart, but because I knew that this version is appealing to all of the junior high and high school students who have to read the play for English. And they will go to this and (I hope) come away understanding the story and loving it. Plus, the play with popular culture and the little references to Shakespeare's world were very cute (the Globe Theatre Pool Hall, and even the Fortune was some sort of vending wagon). I read a bit of an interview with the director on what his concept was for this, and I was thinking it as I saw the movie. He was trying to put the play in a context Shakespeare would have presented it in. Something that a lot of theatre people forget is that Shakespeare was writing for the masses. He was the Quentin Tarantino of his time. And this film definately gives the sense of that, literally even. On the down side, I must say that Leonardo DiCaprio has no sense of the rhythm of verse and had not much of a clue as to what words he was speaking. He had plenty of emotion and gratuitous puppy-dog looks to the audience. But he was not meant to do Shakespeare. He was cast for his name and his looks. And I feel that the overload of religious imagery really fell short of any point. Everyone had a cross. There were plenty of panning shots of those gigantic statues of Jesus and Mary. But they lacked any sense of meaning other than being set pieces. Maybe that's all they were supposed to be. But if so, they should not have been the focus of so many shots. The one absolute descenting opinion of the group of people I went with was that this was an abomination. I saw Rex Reed last night say the same thing. Personally, I can't say that this was perfect. But not to admit to the boldness of this approach and the great amount of successes it does have in this translation is simply infantile. Well, I am done preaching from my high horse. What does everyone else think? Jodi Clark Emerson College Theatre Education (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David J. Kathman Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 23:57:14 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0814 Romeo and Juliet ROCK Regarding the new Baz Luhrmann film of *Romeo and Juliet*, today's (Monday) Chicago Tribune has a story on the film and the reaction to it, entitled "Shakespeare rocks!" The thrust of the article is that the movie has exceeded all expectations at the box office ($11.5 million in its first week to take the top spot, with another $8.3 million the second week), and that the audiences have been heavily teenagers due to heavy advertising on MTV, "The X-Files", and "Friends". The article quotes positive comments from various teachers, who seem to agree that if this movie gets kids interested in Shakespeare, that's a good thing, and that Shakespeare has a lot to offer people of all ages if they'll just give him a chance. Several teenagers are also quoted with positive comments on the film. There's also a sidebar on previous celluloid versions of R&J, including of course the 1968 Zeffirelli version and the 1936 version starring Leslie Howard (43) and Norma Shearer (36). Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David R. Maier Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 00:15:29 -0800 Subject: Romeo and Juliet ROCK I disagree strongly with Jimmie Jung's assessment of the latest cinematic incarnation of R&J. As to it being brought into the here and now, there wasn't much that I recognized as here and now. The vehicles, the buildings, the culture, were all cleverly modified to reflect a more modern, but also a more decadent time. The feel is one of Gotham City meets Blade Runner. Modern (or at least more so than Elizabethan), yes. Here and now? There wasn't much I recognized in my everyday life. I really like this movie. The only thing seriously wrong with it is the overuse of the "video candy"- the special, fast-paced cinematic effects which not only leave your head spinning, but at times have you looking for the Dramamine. The effects have a purpose - to emphasize the pace and the decadence of the times, and to hide details while conveying mood. But they are overused to no apparent purpose. As to the use of the original text and the references to swords and rapiers, I strongly disagree that they are inappropriate. What I appreciate most in this movie is its irreverent humor while making a serious presentation of a moving and timeless story. I found myself searching for the "in" jokes - the billboard ads in the background advertising ammunition with the caption "thunder forth"; the restaurant in the background called "Rosencrantzky's"; the frequent idiomatic quotes from other Shakepeare plays; and the most delicious turn of the Friar's delivery of his letter by Post-Post-Haste Dispatch. As to the references to swords, pay more attention to the inscriptions on the very elaborate and beautiful guns and the references to manual weapons become entirely acceptable if not positively delightful. I found the movie to be one of the most innovative and moving presentations of R&J that I've seen in a long time and affirms for me the timelessness of the text. Unless we are willing to believe that the Elizabethans spoke iambic pentameter in their everyday lives, then we have to accept that the Shakespearean text is not and was not a "natural" form of speech for any time. Thus its use in any time, if done intelligently and artistically, will convey all of its inherent power, beauty, emotion and deep humanity. To that end, this film is a great success. I recommend it highly. David Maier dmaier@orednet.org ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 07:13:39 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0820 Re: WT; RSC; Gloucester's Blinding; Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0820. Tuesday, 12 November 1996. (1) From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 13:45:08 +1100 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0809 WT Query (2) From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 20:02:27 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0813 Re: Stratford (3) From: Frank Whigham Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 23:25:42 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0810 Re: Staging Gloucester's Blinding (4) From: Sydney Kasten Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 10:28:00 +0200 (IST) Subj: Politics? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 13:45:08 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0809 WT Query Jesus Cora For a discussion of the imagery of witchcraft in _WT_, try Stephen Orgel's "Mankind Witches", and the introduction to his recently released OUP edition of _WT_, which has come out, I think (my copy is at home), in the World's Classics series. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 20:02:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0813 Re: Stratford People planning to visit Stratford and/or London can get the RSC schedule free on the internet through several theatre homepages. I found two or three by consulting Voice of the Shuttle and Yahoo, and was able to plan my schedule last summer quite easily. Sara van den Berg University of Washington (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frank Whigham Date: Monday, 11 Nov 1996 23:25:42 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0810 Re: Staging Gloucester's Blinding I've always thought that Gloucester's plea on Lear's behalf at 3.7.59-60 (Bevington), "I would not see thy cruel nails / Pluck out his poor old eyes," was the direct stimulus to the act, performed by both husband and wife: she plucks them out with her typifying nails, he stamps on them (inversion, as with Prospero's "my foot my tutor?"). I think the teamwork (as monstrous marital support) and the female/daughter's agency both important, the latter esp. in light of Janet Adelman's analysis of "The dark and vicious place where thee he got / Cost him his eyes" (5.3.175-76 -- see Suffocating Mothers), where the female is read as the source of, cause, of blindness. Cf. the eye-plucking and casting out upon the ground (the clay, anyway), in Lear's self-threat at 1.4.300-01 and his surely related fantasy of Regan's nails flaying Goneril's visage five lines later. Frank Whigham (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sydney Kasten Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 10:28:00 +0200 (IST) Subject: Politics? Gabriel Egan asserts: A symbolic system in which a narrative cannot be constructed would not be a language, so again this fact ("languages do -in fact- display an innate ability to construct narratives") is a tautology. and asks: A symbolic system limited to mere assertion (eg "fish like water", or "e=mcc") or denotation ("LET X =WINDSPEED", or "RED = STOP, GREEN = GO") is not a language, is it? How about *Me Tarzan, you Jane*? Or how about **How about *Me Tarzan, you Jane* **? Or how about *declaration is not narration*. Doesn't *narrative* imply a time factor? A lot of information can be exchanged without the use of *and then ...*. One can use the terms narrative and language as broadly or as narrowly as one wishes, but in my view the first two words of this posting are declarative rather than narrative. They are the introduction to an argument, and are no more narration the signature on a painting. Narrative, to me, implies the recounting by the narrator of a sequence of events with the expectation that the auditor will have some kind of vicarious appreciation of the the experience of these events. I would submit that the greater part of human intercourse, including the volumes of opinion and information exchanged on this list comprise some form of language distinct from narrative. How about: narration:language=dance:locomotion Locomotion does not require the rhythms and the sequences of dance to be useful and language does not require narrative. Thus human modes of movement display an innate capacity do construct dance and "languages do -in fact- display an innate ability to construct narratives" Sincerely Sydney Kasten ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:03:46 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0821 Re: Romeo and Juliet ROCK Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0821. Wednesday, 13 November 1996. (1) From: Cary Mazer Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 08:42:49 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0814 Romeo and Juliet ROCK (2) From: Billy Houck Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 12:09:25 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0814 Romeo and Juliet ROCK (3) From: John King Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 14:53:39 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0814 Romeo and Juliet ROCK (4) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 15:42:06 -0500 (EST) Subj: Romeo & Juliet do Veracruz (5) From: John P. Dwyer Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 18:09:11 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0814 Romeo and Juliet ROCK (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cary Mazer Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 08:42:49 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0814 Romeo and Juliet ROCK About the current film of R&J, Jimmy Jung wrote: >This >version keeps all the "thou's," "thy's" and "swords." Normally, I'm a purest >for the text; but when Tybalt points a gun the size of Dirty Harry's at you and >then says something about his sword, I get confused. Gee, and I thought it was too heavy-handed and obvious when, in the middle of the quarrel, the camera does a quick cut to a close-up of one of the guns, so that we can see the brand-name "sword" on the barrel. Ditto, later on in the film, when we see another brand name, "dagger." I guess you can't be too obvious. I liked the movie's time/place/culture transpositions, but LOATHED the movie; I'm just too old for all those jumpcuts. CMM (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 12:09:25 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0814 Romeo and Juliet ROCK I AM A PRETTY PIECE OF FLESH: THE NEW ROMEO + JULIET BY BILLY HOUCK "William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet" is hip. Very hip. But then, Shakespeare always was hip. "William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet" is sexy. But "Romeo and Juliet" always was sexy. When Shakespeare wrote it, it wasn't a new story then, either. He adapted an epic poem into a stage play. Shakespeare's script was just the best, most timely version of the Romeo and Juliet story. For the last 400 years, every generation of artists has taken the work of Shakespeare and put its own stamp on it, reinventing Shakespeare according to the prevailing sentiments regarding what is considered "good entertainment." For the last three months my teenage students (especially the girls) have been asking me about this movie. When was it opening? Did I know how cool it is? Could they get extra credit for going to see it? I have seen otherwise reasonable young people get into heated arguments over the relative gorgeousness of Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes. Several teenagers have told me they read or re-read Shakespeare's play because of the impact that this movie had on them. When I ask them why, they roll their eyes and sigh: "Leonardo DiCaprio is a hottie, that's all." When I point out to my students that Roger Ebert didn't like this movie, that he went as far as to write: "Romeo, Quick! poison Yourself!" they point out, calmly and clearly, that Roger Ebert hated this movie because he's old and ugly. This is their Romeo and Juliet. Adults with short cultural memories often need to be reminded that the Zeffirelli production with Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey, now considered the classical standard, was considered risque at the time of its release. The Zeffirelli version is brilliant. It formed a dynamic image of the romantic tragedy in the imaginations of a generation. But that doesn't mean there can be no other version of the play made into a movie. There is an unfortunate tendency in our culture to treat art like it's a sport. Since this "Romeo and Juliet" is better than that one, so we can forget about the inferior one. It doesn't count. Art ain't football folks. It may be commerce, but it ain't football. There's enough room in your head for more than one version of "R +J" Baz Luhrmann the Australian film maker who brought us "Strictly Ballroom" is the director and co-writer of "William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet." If Franco Zeffirelli's 1968 version was influenced by renaissance painting, (check out the lush landscapes) then Luhrmann's big visual influence is MTV. Luhrmann's Verona is a metropolis dominated by the huge Montague and Capulet corporations. All young men seem to carry shiny chrome plated pistols, ready to blast their way through life.The guns are one of the cuter "updating" devices. These are "sword brand 9mm" pistols, so when someone says: "draw your sword"...you get the picture. A little too precocious, but it works. The movie is also rife with Catholic icononography and water imagery. "William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet" has a hip soundtrack with Shakespeare influenced lyrics by modern "alterantive" bands.I like to imagine an episode of "Jeopardy" sometime in the near future: "Remember to phrase your response in the form of a question. This was the first time a Shakespeare play was scored with music by the Butthole Surfers." "What was Romeo and Juliet, Alex?" Somehow the Mozart tracks used in the film didn't make it to the cd, but if you put the audio cd into your computer's cd drive, it plays a multimedia program in your computer's drive. There's even a cool Romeo and Juliet website at http://www.romeoandjuliet.com/author/insult.html ...you can play a trivia game, download the Romeo and Juliet screensaver...you can get the full electronic shakesperience. According to Luhrmann, "although Romeo and Juliet has come to exemplify the ultimate romantic tragedy, we have not shied away from clashing low comedy with high tragedy" Considering the bright, sexy, hip-hoppy images, Baz has shown admirable restraint in his use of bare skin. Those sheets stay tucked up to the chin just like a Rock Hudson- Doris Day picture. Well, maybe not that upright. Still, the title of this film isn't "Baz' Romeo and Juliet" or even "West Side Story Gets a New Soundtrack." The full title of this film is "William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet." Of course, you only get about 50% of the dialogue from Shakespeare's script, although Baz did keep in the seldom-performed scene where Mercutio gives Romeo a tab of acid before they off to the party at Juliet's house. Movie versions of plays are often much less wordy. This is due to the difference in art forms. Because of the unique ability of a camera to see things in a million special ways, movies are often much more about what we see than what we hear said. Stage plays, on the other hand, are almost universally about what people say to each other. You wouldn't expect a sculpture of a nude woman to look just like a painting of the same subject. Why would you expect a movie to be just like a play? "William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet" is a thrill. It's a trip. Billy says check it out. You have enough room in your head. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John King Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 14:53:39 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0814 Romeo and Juliet ROCK Responding to this new movie from the point of view of someone who performs Shakespeare is difficult. On the one hand, I have always believed that the most important element of any Shakespearean production is telling the story, and Mr. Luhrmann has undeniably told the story very clearly. With the assistance of all those MTV-era editing and processing tricks, how could he fail to do that? As for the contemprary setting seeming at odds with the text, this is a problem for any Shakespeare production with a contemporary design, a frequently used concept for many modern presentations of the plays: some audiences have no problem getting over it, and some simply cannot suspend their disbelief enough to buy into it. This is just the way it is, and if you decide on a modern setting for your production, it is something you have to accept as a given from the very beginning. The real problem with this movie for me- and I hated it- was difficult to get to. It was underneath a lot of secondary things that I disliked: I felt that both DeCaprio and Danes, far from being elevated by the language, instead dragged it down to the banal level of their acting, proving once again the old sawhorse about these roles being to difficult for actors who are young enough to play them; although I did not like Danes' performance, I lamented the editing of much of Juliet's material, to the point where the film's title could almost have put parentheses around "and Juliet-" or left it out altogether; the lack of any discipline in the approach to speaking the verse not only made the poetry sound forced and trite, in some cases it undermined the very conveyance of the meaning of the lines; and of course, they all fell into what I feel is the trap of this play, to take it all to seriously. "R&J"'s first half, up to the point of Mercutio & Tybalt's deaths, plays like a comedy. It is light-hearted and lewd, with only a few moments- such as Queen Mab- that carry any forboding. The whole Rosalind section, the first meeting of the lovers and the balcony scene must win our affections for Romeo and Juliet, and in order to do that they must be full of the giddy, awkward excitement of youth- not the brooding James Dean and Natalie Wood types presented here; that rebellious spirit is better left for Mercutio and Tybalt. In short, I felt like I was watching a high school production of the play with an inordinately large budget. Finally, though, what I found really made me dislike this film, was the impression that it was motivated more from ego than from any desire to interpret this tale for our times. The portrayal of Romeo, in particular, was full of ego, more about looking cool than being real or honest. DeCaprio sits firmly at the surface, and stays there throughout. In the end, it seemed as if Shakespeare was almost a peripheral figure in this movie: sure, he wrote the words, but all he's good for beyond that is a few chuckles from insiders about things like the Old Globe reference and the Post Haste delivery service. And the true tragedy here, is that the makers of this film, in thinking they had to make this kind of flashy, stylish, all-on-the-surface version of the play in order to appeal to young people, have done a great disservice both to those young people and to Shakespeare; because the response I have heard from most of the teenagers I know that have seen it is that it is "stupid." Underneath all the bells-and-whistles in still something that they are conditioned to think is boring, and if they do like it and decide to look at the play, they discover that it has eight times as much talking and no filterless cigarettes that look cool so they lose interest (OK, perhaps I am being a bit too harshly cynical, here). If, instead of trying to lure kids to Shakespeare with this kind of false representation of what it really is, the filmmakers had given them more credit and presented more Shakespeare and less MTV editing, they might have had something more important than just a whirlwind box-office hit and a bit of scholarly controversy. John King Platypus Theatre Mesa, Arizona (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 15:42:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Romeo & Juliet do Veracruz Being in a university town (Champaign-Urbana, Illinois) I can confirm that the younger crowd loves this new version. By sheer coincidence, it seems to be the one play that all of them have read in High School -- a wise choice, in my opinion. The camera work is a headache and a half for older folks like myself, but the overall effect -- the modonna imagery, the Christ figure with the family corporate logos to either side, the positively baroque costume ball -- is entertaining. I had to cast off my own concepts for the show prior to entry, however, just as I had to with Sir Ian McKellan's brilliant take on Richard III. This will surely please the million, but may well be Hostess Cream Puffs for the cognoscenti. The references to MTV-style film work are too frequent for a lot of us who enjoy our Bard staged, verbatim, and without pistols named "Dagger", no matter how cool and sleek they may look. Andy White Urbana, Illinois (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John P. Dwyer Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 18:09:11 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0814 Romeo and Juliet ROCK You said: But you gotta respect the attempt to make R&J a "here and now" story. . . . I respond: No I don't. The whole theme of profane (which the director partially got right) "love" vs. sacred (which the chintzy iconography got absolutely wrong) love is debauched. The sacramentality of sexuality that is from the grace-giving bounty as boundless as the sea and as constant as the sun's commitment to warm the summer rose's petals to blow is ruined by the cheap dropping-of-acid-before-the-masquerade that seems to induce the pool-flopping debalconized bubble-popping. The shot of gin or whatever before "Friar Lawrence" says mass, the Mother Mary embossing the handle of a 9 mm., the neon-blue light crosses are crass and stupid. I had to teach this play for years with the audio-visual aid of a film in which Juliet was an ugly 40-ish that made Romeo's encomiums laughable. This 1996 version is ludicrous. The school board would close my shop if I asked my senior high students to see it. I tell them that any version of a Shakespeare play that comes to town makes a demand on anyone who claims cultural integrity to see it. This is no exception. Some of them did and came to class with favorable reviews. However, they thought the language (I guess somewhere in the neighborhood of 30% of the play's words) made it acceptable. They were most puzzled when I gave them my opinion that it is a horrible, crude, altogether repugnant misreading. I must confess that the trailer-park at the sanitary landfill with the mistimed Express Mail truck delivery did make me laugh. But Romeo's cry of despair (Juliet, etc.) need not shake down the thunder from the starless sky. Our senior high students need a reading totally committed to sexual sanctity. An iconography of semi-translucent, interiorly-lit statues debases sex and religion and justifies the suicides. Ughh. John Dwyer ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:12:32 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0822 Re: Rhetorical Resources Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0822. Wednesday, 13 November 1996. (1) From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 16:16:03 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0818 Re: Rhetorical Resources (2) From: Nicholas Jones Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 11:39:30 -0400 Subj: RE- Rhetorical Resources (3) From: Paul Lord Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 09:16:55 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: Rhetorical Resources (4) From: Nell Benjamin Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 13:15:28 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0818 Re: Rhetorical Resources (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 16:16:03 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0818 Re: Rhetorical Resources There are a number of useful books on rhetoric - as I'm sure many will point out. Brian Vickers's *Classical Rhetoric in English Poetry* (1970) is a very readable introduction, which includes an analysis of Sonnet 129. sister Miriam Joseph's * Rhetoric in Shakespeare's Time* (1962), a recension of a much longer work, has a lot of useful information, though it's rather indigestibly presented. Lanham's essential reference book has already been mentioned. I do think it's essential to convey to students the nature of the rhetorical training all writers would have had, and to help them to recognise that 'rhetorical' is not a boo-word; whether it's so important to know your anadiplosis from your epanorthosis is a moot point. David Lindley School of English University of Leeds (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nicholas Jones Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 11:39:30 -0400 Subject: RE- Rhetorical Resources A useful tool in teaching (and just trying to remember) figures of rhetoric is Richard A. Lanham's Handlist of Rhetorical Terms ( Univ. of Calif. Press, 1969, 2nd ed 1992). I think it's still in print in paper. Nick Jones, Oberlin College (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Lord Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 09:16:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Rhetorical Resources Eric Armstrong asks: >So far I am looking at Gert Ronberg's _A way with WORDS: The language of >English Renaissance literature_ ISBN 0-340-49307-0 as a great source of >non-Shakespearean examples, and pronunciations of each term. > >Other recommendations? I like _Figures of Speech: 60 ways to turn a phrase_ by Arthur Quinn, and _The Rhetoric of Fiction_ by Wayne Booth. Online, there is nothing so comprehensive, but if you need a quick jog to the memory, I've found the page at http://cal.bemidji.msus.edu/English/Resources/RhetFigures.html very useful. It's got competent examples, and is the easiest reference to get to without taking my hands from the keyboard. It also contains links to the complete latin and partial english (broken html?) text of Donatus' _de tropis_. >Do people teach these things to students, or do they leave them >to the students to figure out? When do they teach them (at what >level)? Just from my own experience, I was never taught "rhetoric." I was introduced to the tropes in a graduate level critical theory course, in the middle of a discussion of the difference between metaphor and metonymy. That sent me out after a book or two, or else I'd have never known what paraprosdokian was (for example). I don't have them memorized, no. It's what I have come to call "immersion knowledge"; if I had the time to devote to it, I think I could keep the whole catalogue "live" in my head at once. I don't have that kind of time, though, so I find that I tend to recall only the applicable poetic figures that I'm likely to need daily. >To put it more bluntly, HELP! I would love to hear some >suggestions as to where I might turn, where I should direct my >students... If they have web access, point them to the page above; it's of web-length, but fairly complete. Certainly, it should be enough to grab the interest of those of your students for whom rhetoric will be another "Wow!" tool in their analytical and creative methods. Best Regards, paul (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nell Benjamin Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 13:15:28 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0818 Re: Rhetorical Resources There used to be a book called "A Glossary of Literary Terms". I do not remember the author, but it had an amazing array of terms, including some of my favorites: histeron proteron, tmesis, and zeugma. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:17:12 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0823 Re: Videos of ADO, R3, OTHELLO Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0823. Wednesday, 13 November 1996. (1) From: Tom Simone Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 13:20:18 -0500 Subj: Videos of ADO, R3, OTHELLO (2) From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 21:12:32 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0809 Re: Branagh ADO, Other Videos, and WT Query (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Simone Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 13:20:18 -0500 Subject: Videos of ADO, R3, OTHELLO The Branagh ADO, McKellen RICHARD III, and Parker OTHELLO are all avialable on both videotape and laserdisc. If you have a player (not too expensive) the visual, color, and sound quality of the laserdisc versions are about twice as good as VHS videotape. Also, the possiblities for close examionation of the visual text via hypertext programs pioneered by Larry Fiedlander of Standord and Peter Donaldson of MIT are phenomenal. Tom Simone University of Vermont (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 21:12:32 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0809 Re: Branagh ADO, Other Videos, and WT Query McKellen's RIII IS available on video now (I want it desparately) but at a cost of $99.95 (isn't everything). Patience has its rewards so wait about 3 or 4 months and I have been assured that it can be purchased at a more reasonable #29.95. I will be the first in line!! A Shakespeare and Dr. Boni groupie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:09:09 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0824 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0824. Wednesday, 13 November 1996. (1) From: Nell Benjamin Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 13:13:13 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0817 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting (2) From: Eric Weil Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 20:44:20 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0817 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 22:05:15 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0808 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting (4) From: John Velz Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 00:22:54 +0200 Subj: Women in Male Parts (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nell Benjamin Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 13:13:13 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0817 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting I saw a very interesting production of Twelfth Night, in which there was only one male actor. He played Orsino. The director chose to focus on the play as a competition between the characters for, not just love, but the love of a member of the opposite sex. In this way, Olivia was not the only one confused about sexual identity. Occasionally, this conceit was strained, but it did shed some interesting light on the interactions between Antonio and Sebastian, Viola and Sir Andrew, and Malvolio and Olivia. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Weil Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 20:44:20 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0817 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting I seem to recall a story on NPR a couple of months ago about an all-female acting company that is producing some of Shakespeare's plays. But I don't remember the name of the company (something like "Women Acting"?). Hopefully, someone else can add more, but I suppose they would be a good resource. Good luck, Eric Weil (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 22:05:15 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0808 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting In the recent discussion of _Twelfth Night_, I was waiting for someone to comment on Trevor Nunn's movie--with additions and rearrangements. I saw the movie last Saturday, and loved it. I expect it will be much hated among Shakespeare scholars, but I found Nunn's thematic rearrangements very well done. Of course, there is no cross casting, but Sebastian does at one point dress like his sister! Yours, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 00:22:54 +0200 Subject: Women in Male Parts To add to the anecdotal evidence for androgynous (not androgenous, please) roles in Shakespeare, the Duke of Venice was a very imposing Duchess of Venice at Stratford Ontario last summer and Hymen was a white-haired woman (quite matronly) in the last scene of *As You Like It* in RSC prod. in Stratford-upon- Avon, also summer '96. I have long ignored gender in non-amatory roles in informal readings of Shakespeare in my home in Austin, TX; in *Twelfth Night* Sunday 10 Nov. '96, Sir Andrew, Fabian, the priest, Curio, and Valentine were all read by women. In this reading Sarah Velz played both Sebastian and Viola, which was fine until they faced each other volubly in Act V. John Velz ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:13:38 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0825 Re: Politics and Interpretation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0825. Wednesday, 13 November 1996. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 19:34:16 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0820 Politics (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 22:15:20 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0815 Re: Interpretation (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 19:34:16 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0820 Politics Sydney Kasten wrote > Locomotion does not require the rhythms and the sequences of dance to > be useful and language does not require narrative. Thus human modes > of movement display an innate capacity do construct dance and > "languages do -in fact- display an innate ability to construct > narratives" Dances are made of movement and narratives are made of language. But it's not a 'fact' to rephrase this into the assertion "movements do -in fact- display an innate ability to construct dances" if you've defined dances as being made of movement. It really is called tautology. Honestly. Earlier in the same posting, Kasten wrote > I would submit that the greater part of human intercourse, > including the volumes of opinion and information exchanged > on this list comprise some form of language distinct from > narrative. Of course. But if narrative was NOT POSSIBLE in this communication, it would not be language we were doing. So, Bishop's "fact" that all human societies construct narratives is tautology because we would not call them societies if they did not use language and we would not call it language if it couldn't be made in narrative. Presumably being aphasic is horrible precisely because one is cut off from human society by the loss of narrative-making ability. 'I am the person who....' is a narrative which I need to be able to tell myself. Tom Bishop asks: > If we deny that Basic is a sort of language (a computer langauge) > what are we to make of our impulse to call it one in the first place? > Were we wrong? Joking? Stupid? We were making a metaphor. If BASIC was really a language, programming computers would be as easy as instructing assistants. Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 22:15:20 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0815 Re: Interpretation Tom Bishop writes: > My visual >cortex (and most other people's) is very good at distinguishing edges, changes >in contour, color and so forth, particularly where faces are concerned. >Neurology can explain this process in detail. I suppose one could call this >hard-wired neurological activity "interpretation", but I'm reluctant to use >that term because I find it conflates it with a much more deliberate and >conscious activity which seems to me qualitatively different. I'm inclined to >want to say that "interpretation" proper arises when there is a puzzle, >question or dispute (this can be at any stage of perception), but that failing >any puzzle what we have is better named "perception". I do not "interpret" my >mother's face at the breakfast table, unless I'm unsure how she's feeling today >and want to know. Otherwise I merely perceive and recognize my mother. Norm Holland disguises this phenomenon in terms of looping. See, e.g., Norm's _The I_, Chapter 6: A Model of Mind. Of course, identifying a rock is different from analyzing a passage of complex poetry and reaching a judgment as to its literary quality, but both procedures are accomplished by using the human perceptual systems. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:18:43 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0826 Re: RSC Dream; Charms (End-Stopped) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0826. Wednesday, 13 November 1996. (1) From: Patricia Cooke Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 23:57:38 +1200 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0811 RSC Midsummer Night's Dream (2) From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 07:50:12 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0813 Re: Charms (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia Cooke Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 23:57:38 +1200 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0811 RSC Midsummer Night's Dream >I went to the RSC's production of _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ at Stratford on >Avon on November 9th. It was wonderful. It is now going on tour. SHAKSPERIANS >might like to note the following dates : >9-12 April State Opera House, Wellington, New Zealand >16-20 April Aoeta Centre, Auckland, New Zealand I don't want to be picky but it is the AOTEA centre. It means, perhaps, white cloud, as in Aotearoa, land of the long white cloud, a disputed name for New Zealand. We're looking forward to the RSC Dream too. Patricia Cooke, Secretary & Editor Shakespeare Globe Centre New Zealand Inc 97 Elizabeth Street Wellington 6001 New Zealand PH/FAX 64 4 3856743 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 07:50:12 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0813 Re: Charms I understand Scott Shepherd's complaint that end-stopped stage performances of the verse can tend to be rhythmically tedious, and agree that the Macbeth soliloquy he cites appears to be almost totally enjambed: there is a palpable tension in it between urgency of thought and the man's ability to think it to the point of interior utterance. However, Mr.Shepherd is possibly not hearing these tensions as he reads [or types out] the lines in question. He rightly says that the later Shakespeare gives evidence of a new handling of the pentameter line, but does not give as examples what I thought he might--the prepositional line-endings to be found in, say, *A WInter's Tale". It should be noted that the choice to conclude lines with "and" or "the" or "by", or even in the middle of a proper name as in Sir Smile his neighbour, is in fact a choice which conveys attitude and inflection. John Barton had trouble with his RSC cast in this play, when his company "naturally" wanted to enjamb what in actuality are the slightest and rhetorically naturalistic of pauses. These subtle and character-revealing slight stops are reproductions of the process of thought, and are vocally possible only after considerable practice. The delivery, far from ceasing, moves as the mind does. To me, this is the basis of verse acting, and I expect it is pretty obvious how strongly I feel about it. If I may, I would like --tomorrow, it's too early in the morning just now--to provide some instances from performances that will show concretely just what I mean... Harry Hill ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:23:02 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0827 Qs: Inchbald's British Theatre; Hamlet as Sleuth Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0827. Wednesday, 13 November 1996. (1) From: Judy Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 08:48:18 -0400 (AST) Subj: Inchbald's British Theatre (2) From: Harvey Roy Greenberg Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 17:55:03 -0500 Subj: Hamlet as Sleuth manquee, otra vez (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judy Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 08:48:18 -0400 (AST) Subject: Inchbald's British Theatre Has anyone ever seen a set of Inchbald's British Theatre which includes A Midsummer Night's Dream? This is usually listed as 25 vols, and NUC lists five plays to each of the 25 vols. (NUC also mentions two other sets of 20 vols, but doesn't list the plays). The 125 plays listed by NUC do not include King John. However, I own a broken set (of which the highest numbered vol is 32) containing three plays per vol., and in which KJ is included. This discrepancy has encouraged me to explore the possibility that MND may be somewhere included, though I have not seen any mention of it. Any information gratefully received! Judy Kennedy jkennedy@stthomasu.ca (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harvey Roy Greenberg Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1996 17:55:03 -0500 Subject: Hamlet as Sleuth manquee, otra vez I've tried to post this request on several occasions, but several respondents indicate they have never seen it. So, otra vez: I'm reworking a recently published piece on "Dysthymic Dicks", that is, depressed detectives, and at the beginning cite work done on Hamlet as an amateur sleuth, but don't remember the precise reference. Professor Barbara Everett by private communications says she has heard this discussed passim, pointed me to John Kerrigan's recent work on revenge tragedy, which so far haven't been able to find at local bookstores. In any event, does anyone know of a specific reference to Hamlet's sleuthing, or does anyone want to make relevant comments on this score, or does anyone know if Kerrigan cites Hamlet in this respect. "For this relief, much thanks..." Harvey Roy Greenberg, MD========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 08:59:38 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0828 ACTER's Final Fall 1996 Performances Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0828. Thursday, 14 November 1996. From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 07:12:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: ACTER's Final Fall 1996 Performances ACTER's *Much Ado About Nothing* is currently in residency at the Annenberg Center in Philadelphia (show on Friday, Nov. 15th) and at Dartmouth College at the Hopkins Center Nov. 18-22. The Spring 1997 Tour of *Romeo and Juliet* will be publicized on these lists shortly. We have a few openings left for the Fall 1997 *Measure for Measure* Tour; consult our website at http://www.unc.edu/depts/acter/ for the latest schedules or call 919-967-4265. Cynthia Dessen, General Manager, ACTER ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:10:26 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0829 Re: Rhetorical Resources Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0829. Thursday, 14 November 1996. (1) From: C. David Frankel Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 08:42:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0822 Re: Rhetorical Resource (2) From: Terry Ross Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 09:15:30 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0822 Re: Rhetorical Resources (3) From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 12:34:50 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0818 Re: Rhetorical Resources (4) From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 10:22:28 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0822 Re: Rhetorical Resources (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 08:42:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0822 Re: Rhetorical Resource Joseph Bertram's _Acting Shakespeare_ (not to be confused with Barton's _Playing Shakespeare_) has an extensive discusssion (as I remember it) about rhetorical figures in Shakespeare. He discusses "the ladder" for example with illustrations from the plays. C. David Frankel frankel@arts.usf.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry Ross Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 09:15:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0822 Re: Rhetorical Resources I join the chorus recommending Richard Lanham's *Handlist of Rhetorical Terms*, which includes not only the classical terms but also Puttenham's delightful English terms (he calls ploce "the doubler" or "swift repeate"). Puttenham's *Arte of English Poesie* is available online at the University of Virginia collection of electronic texts. The file containing the *Arte* is located at this URL (the file is 600k in size, so be patient): http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/browse-mixed-new?id=PutPoes&tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed So large an URL is easy to mistype, so it might be easier to reach Puttenham by going to this URL http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/uvaonline.html and browsing the list of authors (Puttenham is the last entry on the "P" list). (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 12:34:50 -0500 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0818 Re: Rhetorical Resources A very useful reference work on Rhetoric is "A Handbook to Sixteenth-Century Rhetoric" compiled by Lee A. Sonnino. This book brings together pedagogic texts of rhetorical handbooks used during the sixteenth century. It lists the figures by their latin names, although several indexes in the rear of the book also classify the figures by their Greek names. The examples given are all taken from these sixteenth century texts, namely: Quintillian, Erasmus, Scaliger, Hoskins, etc... Some of these texts may have been known to Shakespeare as a schoolboy and later. Someone mentioned Sister Miriam Joseph. Her primary work in this area is "Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of Language". In this book she uses Shakespeare, exclusively, to illustrate the various rhetorical figures of the time. Critics have complained that this book is more of a reference work than an attempt to surmise Shakespeare's own attitude toward rhetoric. For example, does Shakespeare use on or other rhetorical figure for a particular emotive value; or are rhetorical figures capable of consistently producing certain responses from a listener? These are not issues Joseph attends to, though she skirts the subject by assigning to different figures comical or tragic uses. This subject matter reflects one of my primary interests in Shakespeare, so I nevertheless find the book an extremely useful resource. Another text by Brian Vicars, unfortunately out of print and in my opinion superior to his other book, "Classical Rhetoric in English Poetry", is "The Artistry of Shakespeare's Prose". In this book he examines Shakespeare's use of rhetoric in prose. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in exploring the skill with which Shakespeare deployed prose - often with as much dexterity as verse. Some other books: Both by John Porter Houston "The Rhetoric of Poetry in the Renaissance and Seventeenth Century" "Shakespearean Sentences" - This book is less a study of Rhetoric than of his overall style. For instance, Houston devotes once chapter to Shakespeare's inversions of Subject, Verb and Object for dramatic effect. He also devotes a chapter to Asyndeton. And a new book: "Shakespeare and the Sixteenth-Century Study of Language." I haven't had time to read this book yet but it seems to pick up where Sister Miriam Joseph left off, that is, less interested in cataloguing Shakespeare's use of various figures than interpreting how he applied them. I've never seen the book "Handlist of Rhetorical Terms" but I'm going to pick it up this afternoon from the local bookstore. Thanks to Joanne Woodway for mentioning it. I also looked up "The Complete Stylist" by Sheridan Baker, apparently it's now called the "The Practical Stylist", according to Books in Print. Patrick Gillespie (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 10:22:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0822 Re: Rhetorical Resources I was introduced to a wealth of rhetorical figures in several undergraduate Renaissance courses taught by William Cherubini at Cleveland State U. His class handouts were drawn from Edward P. J. Corbett's *Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student*, Oxford U P, 1965. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:43:38 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0830 Re: Hamlet as Sleuth Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0830. Thursday, 14 November 1996. (1) From: Peter Hyland Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 09:14:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0827 Qs: Hamlet as Sleuth (2) From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 09:24:23 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0827 Hamlet as Sleuth (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 10:24:11 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0827 Qs: Hamlet as Sleuth (4) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 14:43:55 -0500 (EST) Subj: Hamlet as Sleuth (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Hyland Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 09:14:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0827 Qs: Hamlet as Sleuth Harvey Roy Greenberg asks about publications exploring the idea of Hamlet as a detective. *Critical Essays on HAMLET*, published by Longman, contains an essay by William Tydeman entitled "The Case of the Wicked Uncle". Peter Hyland (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 09:24:23 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0827 Hamlet as Sleuth Kenneth Tynan many years ago reviewed Sir Donald Wolfit when he played Hamlet among pillars and steps in a scaled-down Edward Gordon Craig set, around which the already not slim Wolfit would skulk "like an Elsinore private-eye". I can see those eyes under those eyebrows and above those Slavic cheeks as he investigatively researches his decision to act on the ghostly information given. The review can be found in the splendid collection CURTAINS. Harry Hill (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 10:24:11 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0827 Qs: Hamlet as Sleuth Harvey Roy Greenberg asks: >In any event, does anyone know >of a specific reference to Hamlet's sleuthing, or does anyone want to make >relevant comments on this score, or does anyone know if Kerrigan cites Hamlet >in this respect. Peter Alexander in _Hamlet Father and Son_ compares Hamlet to Philip Marlow, and suggests that _Hamlet_ is a detective play, with Hamlet as the man who must walk down these mean streets. I can't recall that Kerrigan discusses Hamlet as detective. Yours, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 14:43:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Hamlet as Sleuth No cites for you, sorry, but as I've been studying and producing Hamlet recently I have a couple crackpot theories for you: My take on the Dane is that he is aware of his mental instability -- Melancholy being a then-clinical term, referring to a volatile emotional state very like what we call Depression. Because of his self-awareness, he is unwilling (wisely so) to take the testimony of a mere ghost as enough to convict his Uncle. He chooses the play because the playwright has conveniently provided him with a company of actors, but also because he knows he will never be able to get the truth out of Claudius or his co-conspirators just by asking. An intenious device, very convincing. How many detectives since have relied upon the involuntary twitch of a moustache, the bulge in the eyes, to steer them on their course towards the culprit? In character, I find some parallels between Hamlet and Jeremy Brett's interpretation of Sherlock Holmes (RIP, Mr. Brett). The emotional intensity, the fascination with the process of discovery, the awareness of nuance, all add up to a truly masterful sleuth, a good 280-odd years before Conan Doyle began his series. A great topic for a paper, I wish you the best! Andy White Urbana. IL ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:50:54 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0831 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0831. Thursday, 14 November 1996. (1) From: Stephen Neville Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:30:20 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0824 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting (2) From: David Skeele Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 12:09:23 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0824 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Neville Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:30:20 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0824 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting > Hymen was a white-haired woman (quite >matronly) in the last scene of *As You Like It* in RSC prod. in >Stratford-upon-Avon, also summer '96. I saw that production too. The actor came up out of the audience. I thought that she was some little old lady who had lost her way. It was quite a shock when she took part in the play. The fact that the part was played by a woman was of no consequence, but her entry into the play from the audience marred the play, I thought. Stephen Neville sjnevil@aol.com (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 12:09:23 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0824 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting >I seem to recall a story on NPR a couple of months ago about an all-female >acting company that is producing some of Shakespeare's plays. But I don't >remember the name of the company (something like "Women Acting"?). The company you are referring to is probably Tina Packer's "Company of Women." They work out of Western Massachusetts (mostly Smith College). Or it might be Lisa Wolpe's "LA Women's Shakespeare Theatre." There may be other all-female Shakespeare companies, but these two are probably the most prominent. David Skeele ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:03:27 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0832 Re: Romeo and Juliet ROCK Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0832. Thursday, 14 November 1996. (1) From: Nicholas Jones Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 09:41:34 -0400 Subj: Romeo and Juliet (2) From: Michael Saenger Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 13:40:33 -0500 (EST) Subj: Romeo and Juliet ROCK (3) From: Richard Regan Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 00:38:36 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0821 Re: Romeo and Juliet ROCK (4) From: Suzanne Lewis Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 06:30:15 -0700 Subj: New R&J Movie (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nicholas Jones Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 09:41:34 -0400 Subject: Romeo and Juliet John Dwyer wrote: "Our senior high students need a reading totally committed to sexual sanctity. An iconography of semi-translucent, interiorly-lit statues debases sex and religion and justifies the suicides." I agree that one criterion by which I'd like to evaluate this film -- which IMHO was both vulgar and fascinating -- is its effect on the audience to which it's clearly targeted. By the way, I'd guess that audience is rather middle-school than high-school students. It didn't take the Kurt Cobain suicide and its spin-offs to tell us about the effect of romanticizing the combination of sex, free will, drugs, and death that can, and does, lead US young people to end it all. R & J is a powerful text of danger if we let it be. BUT...I thought this film was AWARE of that danger and acted on it. The picture of R & J's death is of course super-romanticized: candles, Tristan and Isolde, the high crane shot monumentalizing the bodies... a wonderful rich isolation from the corrupt "so-called life" outside. But that's not the whole picture. 1. Before they die, Juliet wakes up. (Has anyone seen the scene played this way before?) Romeo has to watch her wake as he dies: his whole scheme -- his suicide -- is rendered meaningless. No line, just his eyes in despair. It was very hard for me to imagine that we'd see the suicides romantically after that. 2. After they die, after the crane shot ascends to the heights, the film cuts to shots in documentary style of the bodies on gurneys, loaded into the coroner's van. And then the grainy TV shot -- their 20 seconds of fame -- ends with static and white noise. It's a quick and vivid descent from operatic lush death to techno-oblivion -- a consummation that I think is NOT to be wished by most of our teens. I'm not sure about "sanctity," but I'm sure the film does not intend its audience to identify sanctity with the icons that ostensibly represent it in Verona Beach, the statues, the candles, the friar. I think it lies somewhere, as it did for Shax, in the choices of its characters and their effects on us. Nick Jones Oberlin College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 13:40:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Romeo and Juliet ROCK For those who have trouble seeing a gun and hearing it called a sword, I am sorry you miss so much of Shakespeare. Pyramus and Thisbe must be very frightening to these people, if they cannot perceive irony. I would find it very sad if the Shakespearean community always put itself on the conservative side of art. This is a wonderful movie, filled with clever post-modern references which enhance the text. And the acting was better than many productions I've seen in RSC accents. Shakespeare tapped into all elements of his own culture to produce his art, so why shouldn't we try to do so in reproducing it? Romeo and Juliet will not only survive this adaptation, it will thrive as a result of it. However, this production may pose a grave danger to our snobbery. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Regan Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 00:38:36 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0821 Re: Romeo and Juliet ROCK Although the film has its obvious excesses, it does give us a clear emotional line which many productions lack. The play often founders after intermission, and fails to convert the comedy, the giddy violence, and the initial emotional charge into a heartfelt experience of the finale. My students have only laughed in recent years at the end of the Zeffirelli film with its gauzy romanticism. When I saw the new film, the silence during the tomb scene was electric, giving me hope that future classroom experience of this production will bring a generation back to the play. Of course, it's easier to do the last scene without the Friar's appearance, but that's a different question. Richard Regan Fairfield University (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Suzanne Lewis Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 06:30:15 -0700 Subject: New R&J Movie Greetings and salutations! My husband (also an intellectual) and I just returned from the new Romeo & Juliet movie. We thought it was very well done and succeeded in reaching its targeted audience. The average person in the theatre was a 15 year old girl who left the theatre sniffling. While at times, I thought the spectacle was a bit overdone, I think the hype, spectacle, and modern setting really reached the young people. To quote my husband, we "hope the Academics can remove their tweed long enough to realize how great this film is." As a high school English teacher, I see this film as a tribute to the universality of Shakespeare's word. Long live the Bard and his "star-cross'd lovers." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:20:09 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0833 Re: Politics and Interpretation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0833. Thursday, 14 November 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 10:13:03 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0825 Re: Politics and Interpretation: CORRECTION (2) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 13:17:32 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0825 Re: Politics and Interpretation (3) From: Paul Lord Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 10:15:05 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0825 Re: Politics and Interpretation (4) From: David Schalkwyk Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 11:49:53 SAST-2 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0825 Re: Politics and Interpretation (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 10:13:03 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0825 Re: Politics and Interpretation: CORRECTION I wrote: >Norm Holland disguises this phenomenon in terms of looping. See, e.g., Norm's >_The I_, Chapter 6: A Model of Mind. I should have written: Norm Holland _discusses_ this phenomenon . . . . Sorry. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 13:17:32 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0825 Re: Politics and Interpretation >Dances are made of movement and narratives are made of language. But it's not a >'fact' to rephrase this into the assertion "movements do -in fact- display an >innate ability to construct dances" if you've defined dances as being made of >movement. It really is called tautology. Honestly. Come on now. Speech is made of larynx sounds but plenty of larynx-sound producers can't speak. For that matter, plenty of motion-capable creatures don't dance. >Bishop's "fact" that all human societies >construct narratives is tautology because we would not call them societies if >they did not use language and we would not call it language if it couldn't be >made in narrative. Bees and ants exhibit social behavior but presumably do not construct narratives. I suppose "social" here will be waved off as metaphor the way "language" was with computers. >Presumably being aphasic is horrible precisely because one >is cut off from human society by the loss of narrative-making ability. I don't think everyone will agree that aphasics are outside "society", and this assertion goes some way toward identifying Egan's definition of that term--and here old tautology really does rear its head. Since his "society" requires language and his "language" narrative--by definition--all the examples of nonnarrative communication we can think of are categorically dismissed as nonlanguage, and all our nonnarrative communicators excluded from any sort of society. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Lord Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 10:15:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0825 Re: Politics and Interpretation Gabriel Egan writes: >We were making a metaphor. If BASIC was really a language, programming >computers would be as easy as instructing assistants. Perhaps I misread your ironical intent, but this statement is at best confusing. Programming a computer is MUCH easier than instructing an assistant, for every case except the most trivial. When instructing an assistant, there are two possible active participants in any miscommunication. Not so for the computer; if the computer fails to properly respond to some scripted narrative or command, then the flaw must be attributed to authorial intent or mistake. Once you have properly instructed a computer, it will not "forget" that knowledge, nor can it be distracted from a given task by a particularly compelling episode of "Sienfeld." Further, with a well-constructed program-narrative, the feedback you get from a computer can be much more clear and direct than that from a human. Human language is woefully equipped for error-handling. There's no UNDO ("writing under erasure" notwithstanding). No way to automate complex narative tasks. No GOTO, although that's probably a good thing. So, contrary to your observation, it seems BASIC is a much more effective language for talking to computers than English is for talking to Humans. Computers have no perception, no judgment; they only know what you tell them. Hmm. I thought I was going to be able to tie this to the larger discussion, but I'm not. If I am in fact (case in point) misunderstanding the intent of your analogy, my apologies. regards, paul (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Schalkwyk Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 11:49:53 SAST-2 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0825 Re: Politics and Interpretation Tom Bishop's reluctance to call the way I see my mother's face "interpretation" has a lot going for it. Not least Wittgenstein's subtle analysis of "seeing as" in _Philosophical Investigations_, pp. 193 onwards. To call everything interpretation is to lose some useful logical and grammatical distinctions, as Wittgenstein shows. Heidegger is also useful here. Incidentally, there has been a lot of argument about whether everything is ideological, but as far as I know there is hardly any agreement, even within Marxism, about the concept of ideology itself. Offering a definition won't help here, because the concept is the product of complex and often antagonistic theories. Unlike my impression of my mother's face.... David Schalkwyk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:36:57 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0834 Re: TN; Laser Discs; Blinding; Inchbald's Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0834. Thursday, 14 November 1996. (1) From: Douglas Abel Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 16:19:47 -0700 Subj: ON A LIGHTER, NON-POLEMICAL, NON-POLITICAL NOTE (2) From: Bill Kemp Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 09:31:51 -0500 Subj: Re: Laser Discs of ADO, R3, OTHELLO (3) From: LaRue Love Sloan Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 17:34:31 CST Subj: RE: SHK 7.0810 Re: Staging Gloucester's Blinding (4) From: Judy Kennedy Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 08:14:42 -0400 (AST) Subj: Re: Inchbald's British Theatre (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Abel Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 16:19:47 -0700 Subject: ON A LIGHTER, NON-POLEMICAL, NON-POLITICAL NOTE Twelfth Night. I also played Orsino. During the opening scene, as I was delivering the "food lf love" speech, our senior English instructor and Shakespeare expert overheard the following, loudly-whispered conversation between two junior high students: "Is that Shakespeare?" "Naw. Shakespeare's dead." "That guy didn't write this?" "Naw." "So who's that guy talkin'?" "He's just some old guy." Mind you, he reports that they laughed in all the right places, so I guess we did something right. But I still feel a bit nonplussed. I don't mind being mistaken for Shakespeare, although being dead for three and a half centuries is a bit disconcerting. But just "some old guy"??? Good term, production season or research efforts to all. Douglas Abel, Drama Program Head, Keyano College, (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Kemp Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 09:31:51 -0500 Subject: Re: Laser Discs of ADO, R3, OTHELLO Tom Simone's comment that laser discs offer far superior quality is worth attention from anyone who depends on videotape to get performance images into the classroom. In addition, titles on laser disc usually reach the market just as promptly as do videotape tiles and are cheaper (at least at the beginning). Kathleen Kendrick reported that the videotape of R3 is $99.95; I bought the laser disc a month ago for about $35. One can also order laser discs reliably (and securely) on WWW. And laser discs are permanent; they don't wear out. The easiest way to get information about laser discs is reading FAQs for the news group alt.video.laserdisc. Bill Kemp Mary Washington College Fredericksburg, Va. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LaRue Love Sloan Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 17:34:31 CST Subject: RE: SHK 7.0810 Re: Staging Gloucester's Blinding I agree with Larry that the stage direction for grinding out Gl's eyes with his boot seems, if not absurd, at least overly literal. I've always taken the line "upon these eyes of thine I'll set my foot" (maybe misquoted a bit--it's from memory)to mean taking possession of, just as one would take possession of a "new" land by setting one's foot on it, a la planting flags in the "new world" or on top of Mt. Everist or on the moon: "one small step for me, one giant leap for mankind." LaRue Love Sloan Northeast Louisiana University ensloan@alpha.nlu.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judy Kennedy Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 08:14:42 -0400 (AST) Subject: Re: Inchbald's British Theatre Thanks to the kind people who responded to my query, without calling me an idiot. Despite a magnifying glass, I find that it was my eyes at fault, not the NUC, and that King John is listed in Vol.1. of Inchbald's British Theatre. Hence it is unlikely that I will find a variant set with Dream. I am reminded of a depressing novel by A. N. Wilson, in which a scholar who has lost his eyesight continues his magnum opus with an assistant, never realising it is riddled with error and nonsense. Judy Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:41:20 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0835 Qs: Shakespeare and Popular Culture; Capell, Poel Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0835. Thursday, 14 November 1996. (1) From: Subashini Subbarao Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 96 15:31:27 EST Subj: Shakespeare and Popular Culture (2) From: Wes Folkerth Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 10:30:23 -0500 Subj: Capell, Poel Questions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subashini Subbarao Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 96 15:31:27 EST Subject: Shakespeare and Popular Culture Could somebody please give me information on/examples of how Shakespeare has been absorbed into the popular culture of today? I am specifically looking fo ways in which references to Shakespeare are used in advertisements and so forth. As an instructor at a community collge, I often find that students are intimidated by the thought of having to study "the Bard", and I would like to put them at ease by making them aware of how Shakespeare's reputation has permeated _popular_ culture. Thank you! Suba Subbarao sxsubbar@occ.cc.mi.us (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wes Folkerth Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 10:30:23 -0500 Subject: Capell, Poel Questions Hello everyone, Does anyone know of a good source for biographical information on Edward Capell, the 18th century editor? I've checked the Library of Congress via telnet and couldn't find any biographies. Does the Dictionary of National Biography go back that far? Also, does anyone know where the William Poel promptbooks are? I imagine they're in England somewhere, but would like to know which library if possible. Yours, Wes Folkerth tfolke@po-box.mcgill.ca ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:25:21 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0836 Re: Romeo and Juliet ROCK Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0836. Friday, 15 November 1996. (1) From: Virginia Burke Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 09:24:16 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0821 Re: Romeo and Juliet ROCK (2) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 07:25:50 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0832 Re: Romeo and Juliet ROCK (3) From: Melissa Campbell Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 10:14:04 -0700 Subj: R&J rocks (4) From: Jean Peterson Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 13:52:55 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0832 Re: Romeo and Juliet ROCK (5) From: Al Cacicedo Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 18:31:15 -0500 (EST) Subj: RE: SHK 7.0832 Re: Romeo and Juliet ROCK (6) From: Joseph M Green Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 20:05:36 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0832 Re: Romeo and Juliet ROCK (7) From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 10:09:25 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0821 Re: Romeo and Juliet ROCK (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia Burke Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 09:24:16 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0821 Re: Romeo and Juliet ROCK I thought that you all would maybe like to hear a teenager's point of view on the new ROMEO AND JULIET. Frankly, I am sick of hearing all of this about "MTV views." This has nothing to do with MTV. And second of all, my friend who had just seen it the night before, suggested that we go see it. So we all did, and for the second time in less than 24 hours, he saw it again too. We are talking about a 18 year old here! And he wasn't all caught up on Claire Dains and us females were not all caught up on Leonardo either! What we were caught up on was the story itself. The lovestrucken couple. We all can realate. We all laughed and we all cried and on the way home... There all of us teenagers were.. Not taling about how the people were so hot and how we would like to get into romeo's pants- but we talked about how it was just how the book was- in our minds. We also compared it to the classic ROMEO AND JULIET. I own that video and I must say it is a tie when it comes to the story. I love both! I must say though that the fast moving of the camera did make me a litlle dizzy at times but hey- it isn't boring like a lot of the violent movies we could of wasted our $5 on. On behalf of the teenagers i went with, we give it 20 thumbs up! (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 07:25:50 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0832 Re: Romeo and Juliet ROCK Dear Friends and Colleagues, Nick Jones asks >1. Before they die, Juliet wakes up. (Has anyone seen the scene played this >way before?) The scene has indeed been played this way many times: Thomas Otway (The History And Fall Of Caius Marius, 1680), Theophilis Cibber (Romeo And Juliet, A Tragedy, 1748), and David Garrick (Romeo and Juliet, 1748) all wrote similar versions of the scene. The Garrick version ("which was used as late as 1875... and not discarded until Henry Irving's revival of the original in 1882"say Pedicord and Bergman, the editors of Garrick's plays) is the best written of the three. Here it is: ROM. Arms take your last embrace; and lips do you The doors of breath seal with a righteous kiss. Soft! soft! She breathes and stirs! Juliet wakes . JUL. Where am I? Defend me, powers! ROM. She speaks! She lives! And we shall still be blessed! My kind propitious stars o'erpay me now For all my sorrows past. Rise, rise my Juliet, And from this cave of death, this house of horror, Quick let me snatch thee to thy Romeo's arms, There breathe a vital spirit in thy lips And call thee back to life and love! JUL. Bless me! How cold it is! Who's there? ROM. Thy husband. It is thy Romeo, love, raised from despair To joys unutterable! Quit, quit this place, And let us fly together. JUL. Why do you force me so? I'll ne'er consent. My strength may fail me, but my will's unmoved. I'll not wed Paris: Romeo is my husband. ROM. Her senses are unsettled. Restore 'em heaven! Romeo is thy husband; I am that Romeo, Nor all th'opposing powers of earth or man Can break our bonds or tear thee from my heart. [Juliet recovers herself, and the lovers are afforded a tender moment of reunion before Romeo succumbs to the poison and dies a drawn-out, raving death.] ROM. My powers are blasted, Twixt death and love I'm torn, I am distracted! But death's strongest-- and must I leave thee, Juliet? O, cruel, cursed fate! in sight of heaven. . . . Pull not our heart-strings thus; they crack, they break. O! Juliet! Juliet! I find this version of the scene to be weirdly Beckettian in a way: Romeo goes to his death knowing precisely what a schmuck he's been, but there's nothing for him to do about it. When I saw the movie with my freshmen, they liked the change in ending. I am still on the fence. Best wishes to all, Brad Berens (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Campbell Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 10:14:04 -0700 Subject: R&J rocks I would just like to make a comment. With all the negativity floating around about this new movie, is it really worth my money to go and see it? I have loved Romeo and Julliet for a long time. I think that putting it into our time is a brilliant idea and I wish some one would have done it sooner. Thanks. Melissa (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 13:52:55 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0832 Re: Romeo and Juliet ROCK Nick Jones writes: >I'm not sure about "sanctity," but I'm sure the film does not intend its >audience to identify sanctity with the icons that ostensibly represent it in >Verona Beach, the statues, the candles, the friar. To follow up, I thought the corruption of Friar Lawrence was one of the film's most interesting twists. The early morning drinking, the cross tattoo, the facility with drugs--and was there a suggestion of an exploitative sexual interest in those little altar boys in his charge? And his intent in marrying R&J was clearly self-aggrandizing, as visions of newpaper headlines dance in his head--not to effect peace, but to seize his own 15 minutes of fame. What passes for religious sensibility in Verona Beach. One critic called the Friar's abandoning Juliet in the tomb in Zeffirelli's film a "particularly craven" exit--how much more cowardly is the failure of this Friar even to show up. Like many, I found the rapid-fire jump cuts nearly too much at first (it seems that the first 10-15 minutes either makes you or breaks you), but once I had adjusted I was swept into an experience of almost hallucinatory intensity. I have not seen many Shakespeare productions or films that have made me feel (in Dickinson's phrase) that the top of my head had been taken off, but this sent me out of the theater both deeply disturbed and strangely exhilarated. Oh, yes, and the 250 teenagers in the audience seemed to like it too. Jean Peterson Bucknell University (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Al Cacicedo Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 18:31:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: SHK 7.0832 Re: Romeo and Juliet ROCK I confess I haven't seen the film of *Romeo* yet. However, I did read a review this morning, published in our local newspaper's supplement directed at "the young" in the community. The review was written by a high school student. The gist of the review was that it was a great movie except for the language, which was hard to follow, she said, and sometimes seemed to be a foreign tongue. (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 20:05:36 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0832 Re: Romeo and Juliet ROCK I'd like to read more from persons who liked the film. I thought it cheap and vulgar and still hope to understand how someone could think otherwise. A reason offered: "clever postmodern references that enhance the text." I missed all these and the only pomo references I detected were easy, a bit funny, not too clever. As far as I could tell they had nothing todo with the text. Someone else wonders how the gun/sword thing could not be perceived as irony. This must mean irony in the Pickwickian sense. I would think that the "irony" might be required to mean something. What does it mean, what larger or just ironical meaning is there? None -- as far as I can tell. Religious iconography is to the film what it is to Madonna: kitsch. So, how do the neon crosses and candles do anything to "romanticize" the death scene? Romeo and Juliet die in Madonna's bedroom... this is supposed to enhance anything? In this setting R&J become those children with big eyes one used to see in velvet "paintings" in various "trailer homes." And, try as I might, I couldn't see any despair in Romeo's eyes as he looked on the living Juliet. As far as I could tell his expression was akin to one I saw on a young man who was denied admittance into the Mall of America. The film, in fact, seems to turn away from the horrors of death just as it turns away from the possible transcendence of love. Ill take Juliet's description of the ancient receptacle packed with bones and the body of bloody Tybalt festering over any banal shots of guernies and ambulances and tv sets growing smaller: more or less the bric a brac of the television imagination. And I don't even own a tweed jacket! (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 10:09:25 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0821 Re: Romeo and Juliet ROCK > The whole theme of profane (which the director > partially got right) "love" vs. sacred (which the chintzy iconography got > absolutely wrong) love is debauched. The sacramentality of sexuality that is > from the grace-giving bounty as boundless as the sea and as constant as the > sun's commitment to warm the summer rose's petals to blow is ruined by the > cheap dropping-of-acid-before-the-masquerade that seems to induce the > pool-flopping debalconized bubble-popping. The shot of gin or whatever before > "Friar Lawrence" says mass, the Mother Mary embossing the handle of a 9 mm., > the neon-blue light crosses are crass and stupid. I think you've got that scene completely wrong. Romeo meets Juliet after dunking his head in water, and ending the effects of the drug trip, at least insofar as they are expressed in his visage, or in the the cinematic effects. As with Juliet's inability to hear her mother, while her head is underwater (her first scene), immersion implies an escape from the falsehood of the world which surrounds the two lovers, the drugs, Mrs. Capulet with her overwrought makeup, and so forth. They enter an alternative world, it seems. This imagery is also important for the pool scene, and it's worth noting that they meet when both drawn to the gaze at the tropical fish. All hell breaks loose, later in the movie (around act three, for those still following the text) with the thunderstorm, where the water-world of R&J's private, alternative reality and the dry-world of civic politics meet. Tybalt is shot into the fountain, during the rainstorm. As for the religious iconography, I appreciate its vaguery. The statues represent both the authority which speaks against the feud, when contemplated by Friar Lawrence, the power of the state, when the police helicopters seem to immerge from them, the fate which is Romeo's "foe", and the peace of communion between the lovers, within the Capulet monument topped by a crucifix. Religion never becomes, as in the hands of some crass materialists, a mere opium of the masses. Nor is the power of institutionalized religion simply forgotten, and the movie become some sort of naive appropriation of divine authority to some system of ethics, politics or theories of sex. The debate on the relation of the worldly and the divine remains open in this rendering, as it did in the England of a half-achieved Elizabethan compromise. Enough of my rant. Sean ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:34:52 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0837 Re: Shakespeare and Popular Culture Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0837. Friday, 15 November 1996. (1) From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 10:29:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0835 Qs: Shakespeare and Popular Culture (2) From: Bob Houck Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 11:50:51 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0835 Qs: Shakespeare and Popular Culture; (3) From: David Reinheimer Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 12:37:59 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0835 Qs: Shakespeare and Popular Culture (4) From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 09:54:56 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0835 Qs: Shakespeare and Popular Culture; (5) From: Andrew Murphy Date: Friday, 15 Nov 1996 17:29:51 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0835 Qs: Shakespeare and Popular Culture (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 10:29:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0835 Qs: Shakespeare and Popular Culture I can't think offhand of any advertisements that feature Shakespeare, but movies and TV are rife with references. Star Trek is the first place to look; both the old and new series have many references to the Bard. In addition, there are very funny and short scenes involving Shakespeare in LA Story and The Last Action Hero (in the latter, Arh-nold's Die Hard Hamlet is the only fun part of the movie). Also, if you think you class is at all interested in comic books, you might check out The Sandman, which features three episodes with Shakespeare himself. Annalisa Castald Temple University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Houck Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 11:50:51 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0835 Qs: Shakespeare and Popular Culture; I am reminded of my college Theatre History professor's favorite story: There was a farmer who had never been to a play in his life. His wife begged him to go to the city to see a touring production of Hamlet. He reluctantly too his wife to see the play. When he was asked afterwards what he thought of it, he responded: "I don't see why folks make such a big deal o this Shakespeare fella. All he does is take a bunch of famous sayings and string em all together." Not to mention FALSTAFF beer (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Reinheimer Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 12:37:59 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0835 Qs: Shakespeare and Popular Culture As far as advertising, the only thing that springs to mind is that Shakespeare is a member of the genius club in a recent Altima commercial. As far as other kinds of pop culture, there are films such as "Forbidden Planet," "My Own Private Idaho," and "The Lion King." On television, Shakespeare can be foudn in "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and the afternoon childrens' cartoon "Gargoyles." And I'm sure this is not an exhaustive list. Have a good day! Dr. Dave Reinheimer dareinheimer@cyberportal.net www.cyberportal.net/dareinheimer/davesworld.html (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 09:54:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0835 Qs: Shakespeare and Popular Culture; To Subasashi Subbarao: Michael Bristol's *Shakespeare's America, America's Shakespeare* (Routledge) may prove helpful for your purposes. His new text, *Big Time Shakespeare* (Routledge), looks promising, as well. Also, a different kind of text, Gary Taylor's *Reinventing Shakespeare* (Oxford U P), may offer help. Finally, Marjorie Garber's article, "Shakespeare as Fetish," *Shakespeare Quarterly* 41 (1990): 242-50, may be useful, as well. Regards, Lynn (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Murphy Date: Friday, 15 Nov 1996 17:29:51 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0835 Qs: Shakespeare and Popular Culture A good starting point for Shakespeare & Popular Culture would be Graham Holderness's _The Shakespeare Myth_ (Manchester UP/St. Martins, 1988), which has various pieces on Shakespeare & contemporary society (see, esp. Derek Longhurst's piece '"You base football player!" Shakespeare in contemporary popular culture'). Jean Marsden's _The Appropriation of Shakespeare_ (Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991) also has some useful pieces. You might also want to look at Michael Bristol's _Shakespeare's America, America's Shakespeare_ (Routledge, 1990) & perhaps the closing chapters of Gary Taylor's _Reinventing Shakespeare_ (OUP). I too would be keen to hear about any material that is available on Capell. I've never come across a detailed study of his work, though many of the other C18th editors have had books written about them. Gary Taylor provides the basic details of his career in both _Reinventing_ & in his intro to the Oxford Shakespeare _Textual Companion_. There are also some details in McKerrow's 1933 British Academy Lecture on 'The Treatment of Shakespeare's Text by his Earliest Editors'. Hope this is useful. Andrew ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:38:15 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0838 Re: Rhetorical Resources Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0838. Friday, 15 November 1996. (1) From: Michael E. Cohen Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 08:15:02 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0822 Re: Rhetorical Resources (2) From: David Knauer Date: Friday, 15 Nov 1996 08:36:08 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Rhetorical Resources (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael E. Cohen Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 08:15:02 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0822 Re: Rhetorical Resources Nick Jones, Oberlin College said >A useful tool in teaching (and just trying to remember) figures of rhetoric is >Richard A. Lanham's Handlist of Rhetorical Terms ( Univ. of Calif. Press, >1969, >2nd ed 1992). I think it's still in print in paper. Yes, it is still in print. And for those lucky enough to have Macintosh computers, a HyperCard-based digital version is in production and will be out from UC Press in a couple of months (it is all finished and in testing right now--those who are interested in beta testing it should contact me). (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Knauer Date: Friday, 15 Nov 1996 08:36:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Rhetorical Resources Nell Benjamin mentioned _A Glossary of Literary Terms_. It's by M. H. Abrams and is very much available, if not ubiquitous, judging by what my colleagues keep on their shelves. David Knauer ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:52:57 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0839 Twelfth Night Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0839. Friday, 15 November 1996. (1) From: Whit Wales Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 13:52:04 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0831 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting (2) From: Douglas Abel Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 16:48:49 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0834 Re: TN (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Whit Wales Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 13:52:04 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0831 Re: Twelfth Night Cross Casting >The company you are referring to is probably Tina Packer's "Company of Women." >They work out of Western Massachusetts (mostly Smith College). Or it might be >Lisa Wolpe's "LA Women's Shakespeare Theatre." There may be other all-female >Shakespeare companies, but these two are probably the most prominent. To further split hairs: I believe that the Company of Women is directed by Kristin Linklater. Tina Packer remains Artistic Director of Shakespeare and Company, the group which she and Kristin founded. S& Co. resides at Edith Wharton's estate in Lenox, MA. Whit Wales wwales@cushing.org (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Abel Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 16:48:49 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0834 Re: TN My item on 12Th Night had the first line delighted, which read something like: I recently directed a student production of Twelfth Night. I also played Orsino, etc. Thanks, Douglas Abel [Editor's Note: Here is the entry as intended. --HMC] I recently directed a student production of Twelfth Night. I also played Orsino. During the opening scene, as I was delivering the "food lf love" speech, our senior English instructor and Shakespeare expert overheard the following, loudly-whispered conversation between two junior high students: "Is that Shakespeare?" "Naw. Shakespeare's dead." "That guy didn't write this?" "Naw." "So who's that guy talkin'?" "He's just some old guy." Mind you, he reports that they laughed in all the right places, so I guess we did something right. But I still feel a bit nonplussed. I don't mind being mistaken for Shakespeare, although being dead for three and a half centuries is a bit disconcerting. But just "some old guy"??? Good term, production season or research efforts to all. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 21:29:42 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0840 Questions Suggested by Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0840. Friday, 15 November 1996. (1) From: Jeff Myers Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 14:52:35 GMT Subj: Cross Casting (2) From: Mike Field Date: Friday, 15 Nov 1996 17:05:38 -0500 Subj: Gloucester's blinding (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 14:52:35 GMT Subject: Cross Casting Saw a wonderful production of _The Importance of Being Earnest_ at Goucher College last night. The part of Aunt Augusta was played by a young man (around 20) who was as delightfully convincing as any Aunt Augusta I've seen. Got me to thinking about older women in Shakespeare's plays and whether or not young men (as opposed to boys) might have taken the parts. In contrast, Lane/Merriman was doubled by a similarly young man who played both parts, absolutely unconvincingly, as a decrepit old man. I was wondering if that part might not have been more effectively played by a young woman. Just a thought, since young people in college productions seem to have the most difficulty playing older people; perhaps the way to go is to cross-cast the roles of old people in such productions. Jeff Myers (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Field Date: Friday, 15 Nov 1996 17:05:38 -0500 Subject: Gloucester's blinding I'm glad Frank Whigham and others have brought up this subject as it has been on my mind for some time. I was lucky enough to see the Company of Women production of Lear here in Baltimore at Goucher College not too long ago. I'll admit I went with considerable skepticism and mostly out of curiosity to see the acting of renowned teacher/author Kristen Linklater. Like many an American Shakespeare production there was considerable unevenness with the language, but overall it was perhaps the best staged production I've ever seen of this very difficult play. The blinding of Gloucester was horrifically bloody although I am embarrassed to admit I don't recall how precisely it was done. I believe it was the pluck-and-stomp variation that Frank suggests. I just remember feeling that I was witnessing the precise precursor to Jacobean horror drama. But my problem: in this production the scene ends with the blinding. In the text, of course, there are two servants left, one of whom says, in effect (I am without text) "I don't know about you, but I'm going after the old man with egg whites and alum to soothe his injury." As I recall, these lines were omitted from the much-reviled BBC production as well, and others I have seen. In college I was instructed that this little bit of humanity in the face of overwhelming horror is a key to understanding the play. That scene, along with Lear's insistence "Look here, a breath" just before he dies illustrates the human capacity for hope and compassion, even in a world, such as Lear's, where it is not warranted. I simplify, perhaps, but I still accept the basic thrust of this argument. Shakespeare's peculiar genius in Lear is being able to look into the vast abysm of human darkness without, I think, succumbing to nihilism. Hope and compassion may not be warranted (and in Lear's world it is difficult to see how they can be) but Shakespeare reveals they continue to exist nonetheless, an equal part of our humanity. Why then do so many directors omit those few lines after Gloucester's blinding? Or is it only versions I've seen? Any comments? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 21:36:13 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0841 Re: Poel; Hamlet as Sleuth; Shakespeare as Character Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0841. Friday, 15 November 1996. (1) From: Alan Somerset Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 10:02:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0835 Qs: Capell, Poel (2) From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 10:05:04 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0827 Qs: Hamlet as Sleuth (3) From: Belinda Johnston Date: Friday, 15 Nov 1996 11:27:50 +1100 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0802 Re: Shakespeare as Character (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Somerset Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 10:02:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0835 Qs: Capell, Poel In response to the question about the location of the William Poel promptbooks, they were formerly in the Gabrielle Enthoven collection at the Victoria and Albert Museum, and presumably have migrated to the Theatre Museum, Tavistock Square. Cheers, Alan Somerset (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1996 10:05:04 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0827 Qs: Hamlet as Sleuth Harvey Roy Greenberg may wish to look at CBC Radio's Ideas programme episode, entitled, "The Mystery of Elsinore." I don't recall it treating Hamlet as a sleuth, but the narratorial voice is that of someone who thinks of Hamlet as a murder-myster. His conclusion is that Fortinbras kills everybody. Cheers, Sean. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Belinda Johnston Date: Friday, 15 Nov 1996 11:27:50 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0802 Re: Shakespeare as Character > Shakespeare also appears as a character in David Williamson's soul-geldingly > tedious play "Dead White Males', produced in Sydney, Australia in 1995. Its > symbolism's elephantine quality can be judged from the opening, in which a > university lecturer in 'literary theory' pulls a pistol and shoots the Bard. > The author is said to be Australia's finest playwright. > > Terence Hawkes And Andrew Lloyd Weber is said to be England's finest composer. I do not understand how an academic who claims to be politicised can allow himself to make a sarcastic aside about the colonies. WHO says Williamson is Australia's finest playwright, and WHERE? Terry, you should know that decontextualising a claim like that is a thoroughly ideological move! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 21:41:07 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0842 Re: Politics and Interpretation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0842. Friday, 15 November 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 12:46:08 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0833 Re: Politics and Interpretation (2) From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 17:05 ET Subj: SHK 7.0789 Re: Politics (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 12:46:08 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0833 Re: Politics and Interpretation David Schalkwyk writes: >Incidentally, there has been a lot of argument about whether everything is >ideological, but as far as I know there is hardly any agreement, even within >Marxism, about the concept of ideology itself. Offering a definition won't help >here, because the concept is the product of complex and often antagonistic >theories. Unlike my impression of my mother's face.... I think David is correct about the concept of ideology being contested, and that is precisely why I think definitions are in order. Are we all talking about an elephant, or is ideology another beast? Tom Bishop's concept of ideology may be quite different from Gabriel Egan's. And some people might argue that your impression of your mother's face is the product of complex and often antagonistic theories about mothers and motherhood. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 17:05 ET Subject: SHK 7.0789 Re: Politics As to Presidential address at the Rock Hall, why not? It's the hottest place in town to have a party. As to the Great Debate, I've been cogitating a launch of some sort of my own, but too occupied with travel, snow, and disease to mount it. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 21:53:02 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0843 Qs: AYI; Lear; Ant.; Mac.; RSC MND Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0843. Friday, 15 November 1996. (1) From: Christine Jacobson Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 19:04:50 -0700 Subj: AYLI And Courtly-love poem parodies (2) From: Jennifer Kordus Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 21:50:31 -0500 (EST) Subj: Abdication and Madness (3) From: Shaune G. Wunder Date: Friday, 15 Nov 1996 16:30:02 -0600 (CST) Subj: Antony and Cleopatra (4) From: Jan Stirm Date: Friday, 15 Nov 1996 11:07:21 -0600 Subj: *Macbeth* and theater superstitions (5) From: Naomi Kirby Date: Saturday, 16 Nov 1996 07:09:49 +1100 Subj: RSC Dream (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Jacobson Date Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 19:04:50 -0 Subject: AYLI And Courtly-love poem parodies In "As You Like It", Celia reads aloud a poem written by Orlando to Rosalind. It began like this: >Why should this a desert be >For it is unpeopled? No. >Tongues I'll hang on every tree >That shall civil sayings show >Some,how brief the life of man >Runs his erring pilgrimage (and so on....). Along with the exaggerated expressions of devotion and references to Classic Mythology and Classic history heroines, Atlanta, Cleopatra, Lucretia, etc. I took this poem as a parody of the courtly love poems written in Renaissance times. I know I am a novice in the study of Shakespeare, but is my observation correct. I have heard that this play is also taken from a tale, "Rosalynda" from Shakespeare's times, but do any of you Shaksper members out there have a better idea than I currently have of the poems that this one of Orlando's is a parody of? It would help me understand the satire in this play much more clearly. Thanks. Christine J. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jennifer Kordus Date: Thursday, 14 Nov 1996 21:50:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Abdication and Madness Dear SHAKSPEReans, I am writing a graduate paper for a Shakespeare class on Lear's madness. From my 20th century perspective, I see a connection between Lear abdicating his throne and his later madness as a form of identity crisis. However, I have found nothing in the 16th century literature that connects abdication with madness. I am wondering whether there is anything in the literature on this that I have missed. I will be grateful for any help. Thank you, Jenna Kordus (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shaune G. Wunder Date: Friday, 15 Nov 1996 16:30:02 -0600 (CST) Subject: Antony and Cleopatra Hello, I am currently working on a research paper for my Theatre History class on Antony and Cleopatra. Here at the University of Minnisota Morris. Two areas have become of great interest to me and I hope I can get some imput and or direction to more information concerning them. One is. Could Shakespeare have been aware at the time of the writing of A + C. Of the declining of England's rule from Elizebeth I to James, to be able to compare it to the Rome Republic decline to Imperial Rome? Two is. Has there been any written response to Irene G. Dash's Wooing, Wedding, and Power: Women In Shakespear? If so please share. Thank you, Shaune G.Wunder (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jan Stirm Date: Friday, 15 Nov 1996 11:07:21 -0600 Subject: *Macbeth* and theater superstitions Dear SHAKSPERians, I have a student who's interested in writing a paper on theater superstitions about *Macbeth*; but we're having trouble finding information on how these get started and what's been done on them. Can anyone help us out with suggestions of things she should read (rather than with tales from the trenches). Thanks, Jan Stirm JStirm@wpoff.monm.edu (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Kirby Date: Saturday, 16 Nov 1996 07:09:49 +1100 Subject: RSC Dream G'day! I'm looking for information concerning the RSC Dream in Australia. We read a (very) brief article which said it was coming to Perth, I think, but we didn't get the information. Anyone know any more about it? I'm trying to convince my husband that a trip to Perth is on the books! Thanks! Naomi Kirby nawlins@axis.jeack.com.au ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 21:55:46 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0844 *Pericles* in Chicago Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0844. Friday, 15 November 1996. From: Gavin H Witt Date: Friday, 15 Nov 96 1:15:46 CST Subject: [*Pericles* in Chicago] A notice for listmembers/readers/lurkers in the Chicago area: If you want to see an aggressive and highly engaging adaptation of Shakespeare's rarely performed _Pericles_, there is a production now running at Facets Multimedia at 1517 W. Fullerton--Thu-Sat at 8, Sun at 3 through December 15. Nominated for Jeff Awards, the production uses an ensemble of 8 to create the entire story, and draws on TWine, Gower, and Wilkins as well as a judiciously cut version of the quarto version of the play for its text. All so far have reacted with enormously positive enthusiasm for the presentation and adaptation, and we'd be only too happy to have more informed response and reception. Produced by greasy joan & company; call for reservations or information call 773/761-8384. And yes, I did adapt and direct--don't mean to sound own horn but it is a rare opportunity to see this lovely play in live production. come one, come all. Gavin Witt ghwitt@midway.uchicago.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 16:11:54 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0845 Re: Rhetorical Resouces Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0845. Monday, 18 November 1996. (1) From: David Evett Date: Friday, 15 Nov 1996 17:39 ET Subj: SHK 7.0838 Re: Rhetorical Resouces (2) From: Joanne Woolway Date: Friday, 15 Nov 1996 23:24:49 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0838 Re: Rhetorical Resources (3) From: Roger Gross Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 12:01:59 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re. rhetorical resources (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 15 Nov 1996 17:39 ET Subject: SHK 7.0838 Re: Rhetorical Resouces Lanham is far more useful than Abrams, who defines and exemplifies only a few of the most important terms (but is useful on things like irony) and who offers no such analytical helps as the lists in the back of Lanham that give some means to move from the phenomenon (e.g. repeated suffixes: -ion -ion -ion) to the term, though you might have to look up several in a group to determine which you've got. The problem here is always to help students move beyond a merely Linnaean mastery; but becoming aware of some patterns might help them to become aware of more, and to move from simple toward complex. Paradiegesically, Dave Evett (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Woolway Date: Friday, 15 Nov 1996 23:24:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0838 Re: Rhetorical Resources I was interested to see the request for rhetorical resources and suggested Lanham's Handlist of Rhetorical Terms because I had just assigned a piece of work to some Shakespeare students which was designed to use it. The exercise was to comment on the extent to which rhetorical structures define gender roles in _Measure for Measure_ and _Taming of the Shrew_. The students had to read Karen Newman's chapter in _Fashioning Femininity_ on _Shrew_ and use Lanham and look in detail at Petruchio and Katherine's and Angelo and Isabella's exchanges, particularly the last scenes of both plays and the conversation on justice and mercy in _Measure_. The results that they came up with were far better than they had managed before. Instead of being able to produce the all too frequent essay on Shakespeare's women ("in Shakespeare's day all women were oppressed by patriarchy") they produced a detailed analysis of figures of speech and how they relate to the social and moral issues that are being raised. One student made particularly perceptive comments on the way that both characters refer to themselves in the third person in the taming scene and the fact that Katherine tells Petruchio that "Kate" is not her given name. Commenting on their differing engagements with illusion and reality, she commented, "Petruchio really refers to his own perception of the woman he wants to tame. He does not tame Katherine, but only an image which he sees as Katherine, so that repetition of "Kate" at the end of each line, a rhetorical teachnique known as antisrophe, reminds the reader that Petruchio cares not whether he tames Katherine, so long as it appears so. The use of the third person also reveals Petruchio's consciousness of this "act" of taming after he realizes that Katherine will now submit of her own will. His command to himself, "Petruchio speak," reveals that he is preparing to act the part of tamer, that his is a premeditated act of taming in which he inverts Katherine's language to force her into the existing social structure of woman as docile. Such premeditation, indeed, acting, reveals Petruchio's knowledge that conformity to this structure is not natural, but must be forced upon Katherine in order to uphold the appearance of female subjugation. The existing play within a play, in effect, extends to a play within a play within a play in the light of Petruchio's conscious acting, so that we have to question the validity of Kate's profession of and belief in female subjugation in her closing speech." This student and another also looked at puns, hyperbole, "marching figure" and a few other carefully chosen terms that sent me running to Lanham to look up their meanings. The exercise seemed to work because it made them look at wider themes and issues in the light of small details. They couldn't fall into the trap of simple description of plot or make too many generalizations (though they managed a few!). I was quite surprised at how well it worked - Anyone else done similar things? Joanne Woolway (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Gross Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 12:01:59 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re. rhetorical resources One small emmendation: ACTING SHAKESPEARE is by Bertram Joseph, not Joseph Bertram. It was published in 1960 by Theatre Arts Books. It is very useful. Yes, I do teach rhetoric in my Acting Shakespeare course. It seems essential to me. I don't ask my students to memorize the gawdawful names of the figures but we do learn to recognize the forms and their functions. In acting, of course, we see the figures as being rhetorical strategies of the characters, not the author. An analysis of a character's rhetorical strategies leads to valuable insights. Interesting thread. Thanks to all who contributed titles. Roger Gross U. of Arkansas ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 16:19:33 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0846 Re: Politics and Interpretation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0846. Monday, 18 November 1996. (1) From: Surajit A. Bose Date: Friday, 15 Nov 1996 23:25:55 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0842 Re: Politics and Interpretation (2) From: Paul Hawkins Date: Saturday, 16 Nov 1996 22:45:18 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0842 Re: Politics and Interpretation (3) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 16 Nov 1996 02:30:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: Marxists Vs. the Globe (4) From: David Schalkwyk Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 09:54:56 SAST-2 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0842 Re: Politics and Interpretation (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Surajit A. Bose Date: Friday, 15 Nov 1996 23:25:55 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0842 Re: Politics and Interpretation David Schalkwyk and Bill G. write: >>Incidentally, there has been a lot of argument about whether everything is >>ideological, but as far as I know there is hardly any agreement, even within >>Marxism, about the concept of ideology itself.Offering a definition won't help >>here, because the concept is the product of complex and often antagonistic >>theories. Unlike my impression of my mother's face.... > >I think David is correct about the concept of ideology being contested, and >that is precisely why I think definitions are in order. Are we all talking >about an elephant, or is ideology another beast? Tom Bishop's concept of >ideology may be quite different from Gabriel Egan's. When self-professed Marxists (are there any other kind?) discuss ideology, the definition they're usually invoking is Althusser's: see "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatii" in *"Lenin and Philosophy" and Other Essays.* Surely Bill Godshalk knows this, and as usual he's just being the resident Socrates. Or jesting Pilate, I'm not sure which. (But hey, whichever it is, he keeps us honest.) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Saturday, 16 Nov 1996 22:45:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0842 Re: Politics and Interpretation Bill Godshalk asks again for clarification of the concept of ideology. Further, Peter Railton asks the following question in his entry on ideology in the *Oxford Companion to Philosophy*: "Is there a credible theory of the social psychological mechanisms by which social interests or symbolic needs shape individuals' beliefs and values in the unacknowledged ways that are presupposed when ideologies are claimed to have a functional role?" (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 16 Nov 1996 02:30:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Marxists Vs. the Globe While we're on this thread, I was wondering what others might think of a story I picked up in London about the new Globe. It seems that a large percentage of the money for construction came about as a result of a lawsuit Wanamaker & Co. had to file against the city council in Southwark. Seems the council, Marxists in the majority, attempted to pull the plug on the reconstruction on the grounds that it was an elitist exercise (!!). The lawsuit that resulted led to a large settlement in the Globe's favor, and contributed greatly to the amazing space we now have available for performers from around the world. There seem to be people on this list who insist on political interpretations of a decidedly leftist stripe; would it be irrelevant to point out that in England, as well as in the Communist world (China comes to mind in particular), popular forms of entertainment are rejected out of hand, branded "elitist" and persecuted despite the facts? Andy White Urbana, IL (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Schalkwyk Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 09:54:56 SAST-2 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0842 Re: Politics and Interpretation I agree with Bill that some people may think that the impression of one's mother's face may be the product of complex theories, and they may well be right. I'm not so sure that it helps to assume that this is the same kind of theory, or the same concept of theory, that produces the concept of ideology. The problem of the debate about politics, theory, ideology is the tendency to subsume everything under a single, overarching, concept without discrimination. What I value about Wittgenstein is his discrimination between concepts, especially when differences between concepts are masked by the singularity of the same signifier: he shows us to be attentive to different concepts of experience, seeing, politics, ideology. Saussurean linguistics works in the opposite way, assuming (wrongly) that there is one (and only one) signified (concept) for each signifier. So, because we are all now honorary members of the Saussure club, we have endless and pointless debates about whether everything is ideology or politics or sex or language, or whatever. "When we say:`Every word in the language signifies something' we have so far said *nothing whatsoever*; unless we have explained exactly *what* distinction we wish to make" (_PI_, para. 13). David Schalkwyk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 16:22:43 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0847 Re: Shakespeare and Popular Culture Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0847. Monday, 18 November 1996. (1) From: Bill Kemp Date: Saturday, 16 Nov 1996 10:57:10 -0500 Subj: Re: Shakespeare and Popular Culture (2) From: Pat Dunlay Date: Sunday, 17 Nov 1996 17:43:02 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0837 Re: Shakespeare and Popular Culture (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Kemp Date: Saturday, 16 Nov 1996 10:57:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Shakespeare and Popular Culture Several years ago (five? even ten?) British Airways ran a TV commercial in which all the text came from Gaunt's "sceptered isle" speech. The images were standard Elizabeth's magic kingdom stuff (Beefeaters, Tower of London, Houses of Parliament, thatched-roof cottages, rolling green swards). Over them a plumy voice recited a jumble of lines from R2. Shakespeare got no credit as the copy writer. Bill Kemp Mary Washington College Fredericskburg, Va. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Dunlay Date: Sunday, 17 Nov 1996 17:43:02 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0837 Re: Shakespeare and Popular Culture On Shakespeare and Popular Culture, I'd suggest Harriet Hawkins book on the subject. I'm afraid I don't have the exact title, but it's similar to the stated subject. Harriet lectured from it in class at Oxford that I took last year and I intended to buy it and have her sign it. I procrastinated and to my sorrow, Harriet died just a few months later. Pat Dunlay ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 16:44:20 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0850 Q: Shakespeare in French Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0850. Monday, 18 November 1996. From: Bianca Walther Date: Saturday, 16 Nov 1996 13:18:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Q: Shakespeare in French Dear SHAKESPEAReans, I am writing a paper about parallels in _King Lear_ and Molie`re's _Tartuffe_. Although I do not assume that Molie`re borrowed from _King Lear_, it would be helpful to know if and to what extent Shakespeare's plays were read in France. Does anyone know about early translations of Lear, or other plays, into French -- e.g. when they were done and who did them? Merci, Bianca Walther ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 16:27:33 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0848 Romeo and Juliet ROCK Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0848. Monday, 18 November 1996. From: Mike Field Date: Friday, 15 Nov 1996 17:47:26 -0500 Subject: Romeo and Juliet ROCK I would like to respond to Joseph Green, who said he would like to hear more from people who liked the film. When I first wrote for public television the most eye-opening experience was being introduced to the (now largely abandoned) two-column format. On each page of the shooting script there are two columns: on the left a description of the visual images, a somewhat wider column; on the right, the dialogue, a somewhat narrower column. I came to believe this format realistically portrays the television hierarchy, a view later confirmed when I was told "characters should speak in short sentences and never more than three sentences at a time." Obviously, Shakespeare doesn't fit in this format, or at least I should say, it's not a natural fit. Film and television, to be true to themselves, must reinterpret the work. So when I go to see the plays on the screen I am willing to accept that I will not see all the play, just those parts the director feels are important enough to show me. I guess I'm saying I'm willing to cut the director a break and follow his or her version, judging it by his or her criteria. The plays have survived 400 years, they'll no doubt survive another 400. No film should be weighted with the responsibility of being "definitive" (my greatest worry in my eager anticipation to see Branagh's Hamlet). Having said all that, here's what I liked: 1) The authentically frantic pacing of the opening brawl, where "Do you bite your thumb at me?" quickly spirals out of the participant's control and they're SCARED, but can't stop it. I think it's just what Shakespeare ordered, and I wish more staged versions started with this much energy. Terrific! 2) The guns called "Rapier" and etc... Far from a gimmick, I think the director was saying, What if personal weapons were a common and expected gentleman's accessory, just as swords were in the world of Shakespeare's play? In our modern setting (or in this case, post-modern) those weapons would of course be guns and the details he created--check your guns at the pool hall (where fights are no doubt common) and electronic scanners at the Capulet's party really give an insight into ancient grudges that break forth to new mutiny. The societal context of the play is made brilliantly clear by this device. 3) The lovers. They're young and pretty, and if they don't speak the language quite so well as Olivier (though I hardly think they were as bad as some insist) they are young and pretty and to a great extent that's what they play is about. They and their love are too pure and fragile for this world, as I belive anyone on the list over 35 understands and can relate. 4) The death. The neon crosses and candles and Juliet waking up to watch Romeo die. Pure pathos. Unadultrated bathos. But I think true to the spirit of the play. R&J may well be Shakespeare's most effective work, but few would suggest it is the most dramaturgically satisfying or the work of great maturity. He pulls out all the stops on stage, and I think the director matched him in this film. I liked it, and continue to like it, because it put excitement back into Shakespeare. It didn't touch all my favorite themes in the play (like the betrayal of adults led by the Nurse and the Friar, or the great forcefulness of Juliet's personality) but it did make the story feel like a foolish headlong impassioned rush to tragedy with all the unnerving impetuousness of youth. Totally cool. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 16:54:45 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0852 Additions for the SPINOFF BIBLIO File Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0852. Monday, 18 November 1996. From: William D Walsh Date: Saturday, 16 Nov 1996 15:04:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Additions for the SPINOFF BIBLIO File You are probably already aware of this: Neil Gaiman dedicated two issues of the comic book _Sandman_ to Shakespeare plays. The first, _Sandman_ #19 (also reprinted in the collection _Dream Country_), deals with _A Midsummer Night's Dream_. The second is entitled _The Tempest_ (it is, interestingly enough, the final issue of _Sandman_ and Gaiman's farewell to his readers. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 16:59:45 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0854 Call for submissions: ELS Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0854. Monday, 18 November 1996. From: Michael Best Date: Sunday, 17 Nov 1996 16:00:47 -0800 Subject: Call for submissions =================== PLEASE CROSS-POST =================== English Literary Studies seeks quality submissions for its annual monograph series. ELS publishes peer-reviewed monographs (usual length 45,000-60,000 words) on the literatures written in English. The Series is open to a wide range of methodologies, and it considers for publication a variety of scholarly works: bibliographies, scholarly editions, and historical and critical studies of significant authors, texts, and issues. For further information write the Editor, English Literary Studies, Department of English, University of Victoria, P.O. Box 3070, Victoria, B.C., Canada. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 16:42:35 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0849 Re: Twelfth Nights Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0849. Monday, 18 November 1996. (1) From: E. Pearlman Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 08:20:50 -0700 (MST) Subj: Trevor Nunn's New Twelfth Night (2) From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 12:38:01 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0839 Twelfth Night (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. Pearlman Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 08:20:50 -0700 (MST) Subject: Trevor Nunn's New Twelfth Night In the new film, Feste is seen in one of the opening scenes observing Viola's landing on shore. She discards a necklace. In one of the very last scenes, Feste ceremoniously returns the necklace to her. Because of his age and omnipresence (and because of judicious cutting of the text), this Feste seems more like Gravity than Folly. But exactly how much is he supposed to know about Viola and her disguise? Any theories? E. Pearlman (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 12:38:01 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0839 Twelfth Night >To further split hairs: > >I believe that the Company of Women is directed by Kristin Linklater. Tina >Packer remains Artistic Director of Shakespeare and Company, the group which >she and Kristin founded. S& Co. resides at Edith Wharton's estate in Lenox, MA. Actually, it's something of a joint enterprise between the two women, though Ms. Linklater may in fact be the titular head of the company. Thanks for the clarification! David Skeele ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 16:52:41 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0851 Re: Madness; Gloucester' Blinding; Hamlet as Sleuth Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0851. Monday, 18 November 1996. (1) From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Saturday, 16 Nov 1996 16:34:42 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0843 Qs: Lear (2) From: Thomas Berger Date: Sunday, 17 Nov 1996 08:31:18 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0840 Questions Suggested by Productions (3) From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Sunday, 17 Nov 1996 18:17:35 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0830 Re: Hamlet as Sleuth (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Saturday, 16 Nov 1996 16:34:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0843 Qs: Lear To Jennifer Kordus: You may find it helpful to contact Carol Neely at U of IL, Urbana- Champaign (cneely@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu), regarding the issue of madness in early modern England. Regards, Evelyn Gajowski (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Berger Date: Sunday, 17 Nov 1996 08:31:18 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0840 Questions Suggested by Productions RE: Mike Fields / Gloucester's blinding I think that the folio omits the lines of the servants after the blinding, which appear only in the 1608 quarto. You might want to consult TAYLOR and WARREN's DIVISION OF THE KINGDOM. Those very sensitive lines were written, it seems, to get Glouceseter off stage, clean him, up bandagethose missing orbs and send him out into the next scene. With an "act pause" as there may have been after 1608-ish, all this is unnecessary, as the act pause give the actor a chance to do this while the audience goes out to smoke cigarettes, eat ice cream, have a coca-cola. tom berger st. lawrence university (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Sunday, 17 Nov 1996 18:17:35 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0830 Re: Hamlet as Sleuth Many thanks for the respondents to my question re Hamlet as sleuth manquee. I would be grateful for the complete Peter Alexander reference, "Hamlet, Father and Son" as well as the reference cited from CURTAINS. My first pass on DYSTHYMIC DICKS FROM DUPIN TO CRACKER will appear next month in Psychiatric Times (I'm in the process of expanding this to a larger article). If anyone wants a copy of the Times piece, send me your address. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 16:57:44 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0853 Re: Hymen Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0853. Monday, 18 November 1996. From: Peter L Groves Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 10:35:36 GMT+1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0831 Re: As You Like It >> Hymen was a white-haired woman (quite >>matronly) in the last scene of *As You Like It* in RSC prod. in >>Stratford-upon-Avon, also summer '96. > >I saw that production too. The actor came up out of the audience. I thought >that she was some little old lady who had lost her way. It was quite a shock >when she took part in the play. The fact that the part was played by a woman >was of no consequence, but her entry into the play from the audience marred the >play, I thought. I too witnessed this bizzarrerie; what made it even stranger was the programme note from the director, Steven Pimlott: "I think one has to take the Folio at its word and see this as a theophany: the god comes to earth, as in several of Shakespeare's late plays. Hymen is the final manifestation of Arden's magic". [!] ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:11:32 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0855 ACTER Performance in the UK Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0855. Monday, 18 November 1996. From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 07:41:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: ACTER Performance in the UK ACTER will present one final performance of *Much Ado About Nothing* on Saturday, December 14th at 7:30 p.m. at the Bridge Lane Theatre, Bridge Lane, Battersea, SW11. Tickets are 5 pounds adults, 3 pounds students. For tickets and info on how to reach theatre, call 0171-228-8828. Clive Arrindell, Gregory Floy, Frances Jeater, Peter Lindford, and Biddy Wells are in the cast. This is one of the first post-tour performances in London, and we hope that all those interested in ACTER will attend. The show runs 2 hours and 25 minutes including one 15 minute interval. Cynthia Dessen, General Manager, ACTER ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:16:06 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0856 Re: *Macbeth* and Theater Superstitions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0856. Monday, 18 November 1996. (1) From: Bill Houck Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 11:54:10 -0500 Subj: Re: *Macbeth* and Theater Superstitions (2) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 12:20:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Scottish Tragedy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Houck Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 11:54:10 -0500 Subject: Re: *Macbeth* and Theater Superstitions WITCHES & JESUITS (Shakespeare's Macbeth) by Gary Wills, Oxford University Press, 1995 deals very intelligently with the subject of superstition. Bill Houck (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 12:20:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Scottish Tragedy There are some primary sources that may be of interest, for the student who is looking into the origins of theatrical superstitions on this show. First, there is the hefty contemporary text on Witchcraft by John Scots(?), and then there is a slim volume produced by King James himself, in which he clearly states his belief that portrayal of witches, whether as research or as performance, is wicked and should be banned. James I had a rather personal encounter with witches, as I recall, around the time he went to Elsinore to marry. A certain Scottish noble went to the sea and with a few witches at his side, threw cat's corpses and such into the sea, in hopes of raising a storm that would wreck his ship. Upon James' return, he interrogated one of these witches (someone check me on this, please, it's been a while since I researched this), and she proved her powers by repeating some rather personal remarks the King made in his bedchamger on his wedding night. A good point of departure would be that in the Bard's day witches were indeed a force to be taken very seriously, and that the ban on the Scottish Tragedy had to do with James' personal research on witchcraft, not merely on superstition. Andy White Urbana, IL ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 06:42:49 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0857 Q: Original Casts in Shakespere's Plays Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0857. Wednesday, 20 November 1996. From: Beth Cherne Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 14:57:23 -0600 (CST) Subject: Original Casts in Shakespere's Plays Recently a query was posted concerning originators of roles in Shakespeare's plays. Where might one find information on the subject of acting companies and roles they played? A student of mine is doing research on same. Thanks for any and all information. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 06:47:37 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0858 LEAR: Kindness and Madness Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0858. Wednesday, 20 November 1996. (1) From: Roger Gross Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 15:27:04 -0600 (CST) Subj: omitted kindness in LEAR (2) From: Roger Gross Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 15:48:49 -0600 (CST) Subj: madness in LEAR (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Gross Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 15:27:04 -0600 (CST) Subject: omitted kindness in LEAR Mike Field asks why the servant's kind intent to care for Gloucester is so often absent from recent productions of LEAR. My guess is that it all grows from the unfortunate influence of Jan Kott's book, SHAKESPEARE OUR CONTEMPORARY, which (it seems to me) tries to show that Samuel Beckett and Shakespeare had the same soul. Peter Brook, in the midst of his famous Theatre of Cruelty year, was strongly influenced by Kott and produced a brilliant but misguided LEAR with Paul Scofield. In order to make the Kott interp work with the script, Brook had to cut everything that contradicts the totally negative view, including the lines Mike refers to and the attempt of the servant to stop Cornwall from plucking out the other eye. I think of this as the "as flies to wanton boys are we to the Gods" version of LEAR. Since Kott and Brook, it has been fashionable to abuse the text this way. For reasons I don't get, it seems hip, right for our time. But what a loss is there. Shakespeare's view is so much more profound. Roger Gross U. of Arkansas (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Gross Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 15:48:49 -0600 (CST) Subject: madness in LEAR Jennifer Kordus asks about madness and abdication in LEAR. There is something here but I wouldn't look for it in attitudes of the times; script interp and your knowledge of human nature will get you farther here. I would start (and probably end) with the line, "they told me I was everything; 'tis a lie--I am not ague-proof." Lear had lived a life completely buffered from social reality; with terrible suddenness and violence, he is made to confront that reality. Madness may be a kind of natural stage in the healing process for anyone so abruptly and mercilessly educated. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 06:53:44 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0859 Re: Hymen Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0859. Wednesday, 20 November 1996. (1) From: David Evett Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 17:23 ET Subj: SHK 7.0853 Re: Hymen (2) From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1996 17:22:31 +1100 (EST) Subj: Re: Hymen (3) From: Bill Houck Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1996 13:43:28 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0853 Re: Hymen (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 17:23 ET Subject: SHK 7.0853 Re: Hymen I hope that little-old-lady Hymen was from Dubuque, and properly shod for the role. An otherwise highly satisfying _As You Like It_ done by the Great Lakes Theater Festival here in Cleveland nearly came off its rails at the entry of Hymen-as-Dionysus (the Caravaggio one), a lissome youth wearing nothing but a kind of market-garden cache-sexe (a Speedo swimsuit, I surmise, with shiny fruit-like forms painted fruity colors sewed on to it), his Zonker-tan body makeup liberally dusted with gold powder. You didn't know where to look. But it is a very difficult scene to stage for our times (maybe for Shakespeare's); I'd like to hear reports on treatments that SHAKSPER viewers thought successful. Theophanically, Dave Evett (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1996 17:22:31 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: Hymen In a production of AYLI at the Sydney Theatre Company earlier this year the role of Hymen was played as Shakespeare who was flown in sitting on a huge quill pen, at a point where the actors/characters didn't seem to know what to do next. After speaking the designated lines for Hymen from high above the stage on his quill, he threw down to the other characters a sheet of paper containing the ending of the play, including the speech by Jaques de Bois with the astonishing and highly improbable revelations about Duke Frederick. While the actor playing Jaques de Bois read these lines out, the rest of the cast looked on in what seemed like incredulity and derision at this feeble ending to the play, while Shakespeare/Hymen simply looked apologetic as if to say that it was the best he could do. I was less than fully convinced by either this piece of staging or the production as a whole, but at least it was a way of directly confronting one of Shakespeare's bizarrely happy endings (_Cymbeline_ is another), rather than just skimming over it and hoping nobody notices, which is what has happened in most productions I've seen. Adrian Kiernander University of New England (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Houck Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1996 13:43:28 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0853 Re: Hymen I saw Steven Pimlott's RSC AS YOU LIKE IT twice last summer, as part of an NEH seminar in Stratford. During a discussion on the play, Pimlott told us that he wanted to create a Hymen that came from another world...and that the world of the audience was a different world from the world of the play. He agreed that it wasn't really working, and might be changed when the show transferred to London. If anyone sees it there, it would be interesting to note any changes. I didn't think Hymen was the oddest thing about the production, however. Just before intermission when Orlando and Adam make it to the court of the Banished duke in the woods, ADAM DIES and Orlando goes off chatting with the Duke, leaving Jaques to deal with the dead Adam. I had never noticed before that Adam didn't speak in the second half of the play. Has anyone ever seen Adam killed off in another production? In the second half of the play, there is a huge mound of earth upstage with dead flowers scattered around it. Orlando delivers his Rosalind love poems from this mound. Pimlott and the actors insisted that this mound was not Adam's grave, but it sure looked like it. That steel floor was aparently very treacherous, especially when the fake snow hit it, so they had to put a coat of grit on it to cut down on the sliding action. Unfortunately the grit tends to rip tights and hands. it's a tough business, acting. Despite some strange elements, I liked AYLI best of all the RSC shakespeare productions I saw last summer. Billy Houck ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 06:58:19 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0860 Re: Twelfth Nights Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0860. Wednesday, 20 November 1996. (1) From: Ann Blake Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1996 11:45:52 +1100 Subj: cross-casting in TN (2) From: Jodi Clark 303971 Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 20:46:15 +0200 (IST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0849 Re: Twelfth Nights (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ann Blake Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1996 11:45:52 +1100 Subject: cross-casting in TN In this year's Melbourne Fringe Festival Arden Productions staged a completely cross-cast 'Twelfth Night', directed by Julian Beckedahl. This was a consistently cross-dressed and -cast production: all male roles, down to the Officers, Priest and Sea Captain, were played by women, and all female by men. This is Illyria, Lady: ' a land where all that seems real is not...where gender means nothing'(the programme) In an ABC radio panel on cross-casting and -dressing Beckedahl defended his scheme as giving his contemporary audience a version in tune with the varied gender-questioning effects of the original staging. It would certainly avoid the nagging questions which partial cross-casting always throws up. I wish I'd seen it. From reviews and reports, it seems to have been an intelligent and dramatically effective solution. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jodi Clark 303971 Date: Monday, 18 Nov 1996 20:46:15 +0200 (IST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0849 Re: Twelfth Nights This is really just to clarify who is the director of the Company of Women. As of their last production, which was King Lear two months ago, Maureen Shea was the artistic director. Kristin Linklater played Lear and has had a lot of involvement with the collaborative effort in forming the group. Both Linklater and Shea teach at Emerson College in Boston in addition to their other projects. Jodi Clark Theatre Education Grad. Program Emerson College ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 07:07:15 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0861 Re: *Macbeth* and Theater Superstitions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0861. Wednesday, 20 November 1996. (1) From: Belinda Johnston Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1996 11:57:04 +1100 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0856 Re: *Macbeth* and Theater Superstitions (2) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1996 10:02:03 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0856 Re: *Macbeth* and Theater Superstitions (3) From: Steve Neville Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1996 10:48:14 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0856 Re: *Macbeth* and Theater Superstitions (4) From: Patricia Cooke Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 20:20:54 +1200 Subj: Macbeth: origin of superstitions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Belinda Johnston Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1996 11:57:04 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0856 Re: *Macbeth* and Theater Superstitions I think the 'contemporary' text Andy is referring to is Reginald Scot's 1584 *Discoverie of Witchcraft*, a sceptical text which was the target of James' own 1597 text *Daemonologie*, which rehearses scriptural 'proofs' of the existence of witchcraft. The strenghtening of witchcraft statutes in the early 17th century has often been attributed to James I's personal interest in witchcraft, however it has also been quite persuasively argued tht by the time he became king of England he was relatively unconcerned about witchcraft. Stuart Clark (in Brian P. Levack ed., *Articles on Witchcraft, Magic and Demonology" Garland 1992)points out that one condition that undoubtedly alleviated James' concern was the simple fact that English witchcraft and sorcery were seldom aimed at him. I think it's quite difficult to simply claim that James was a rampantly superstitious witch-hunter of a king, especially given his interventions in later fraudulent trials. I don't have a copy of *Daemonologie* at hand, but I don't remember a place in it where he states that witchcraft cannot be represented, indeed it is represented quite frequently on the Jacobean stage (cf. *The Masque of Queenes*, *The Witch of Edmonton*, *The Witch*, *The Tragedy of Sophonisba*). But certainly the birth-strangled babes, pilot's thumbs, 'witche's mummy', toads and cats of *Macbeth* can all be found in the Scot text, and to a lesser extent, *Daemonologie*. You might also want to take a look at Laura Levine's excellent work on *Daemonologie* in *Men in Women's Clothing* where she suggests that the fear of witchcraft arose from the same representative crisis that produced anti-theatrical tracts- a fear that representation could act not just as a 'mirror of Majestie' but could actually alter that hierarchised reality of which the monarch was Or just wait until I publish my disseration! Regards, Belinda (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1996 10:02:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0856 Re: *Macbeth* and Theater Superstitions Re Andy White's reply: Reginald Scot's _Discovery of Witchcraft_ is a very sceptical text that basically assumes all witches are deluded impoverished old women, and that no one but a dunce would take them seriously. This attitude is at odds with James' book on demonology, but not at odds so much with the later attitude James developed towards witches, after he discovered the damage superstition could do to deluded impoverished old women. He stopped some witch trials in Scotland in the 1590s and forbade further prosecution; in England he personally involved himself in some trials and established witches' innocence. But that is not to say that he did not believe in witches. He merely learned how witch-belief could be abused. As for the famous case of the witches of Berwick, the nobleman who may or may not have been involved did not go to sea with the witches. They threw in a cat weighted with dead body parts into the sea from a cliff at Berwick. A storm happened, in which James's boat was separated from the rest of his fleet, as he was coming home from Denmark with his bride. Yes, one witch apparently knew the very words James said to Anne on their wedding night. The implication for all this in _Macbeth_ might rather be to demonstrate the ambiguity of superstitious interpretation of events. Were the witches of Act 1 the kind of witches Reginald Scot speaks of? Were the Act 4 witches merely figments of Macbeth's diseased imagination? The 'reality' of the witches in Macbeth is debatable, and that might be a better focus for a student assignment, rather than to try to suggest that everybody believed in witches. That simply was not the case. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Neville Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1996 10:48:14 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0856 Re: *Macbeth* and Theater Superstitions The curse strikes again : >Upon James' return, he interrogated one of these >witches (someone check me on this, please, it's been a while since I researched >this), and she proved her powers by repeating some rather personal remarks >the King made in his bedchamger on his wedding night. I've checked this, and I think you will find that it was in his bedchamber ! Regards Steve Neville sjnevil@aol.com (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia Cooke Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 20:20:54 +1200 Subject: Macbeth: origin of superstitions Dear Jan Stirm Apart from the fact that Macbeth is quite a dangerous play for actors because of all the sword fights and the frequent use of rostra from which it it easy to fall, Donald Sinden in his book A Touch of the Memoirs, Hodder & Stoughton 1982, suggests the following: "Before the days of repertory companies most towns had a stock company - a group of actors whose job it was to support visiting stars who toured around the country. If any of these companies was doing badly they would put on Macbeth, which was a sure-fire box office winer, to recoup their losses. As the theatreical newspapers carried details of the plays to be performed, the entire profession would know which companies were failing. Macbeth, therefore, became synonymous with ill fortune. Give a dog a bad name - actors now look for trouble." Personally I think it's all those witches. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 07:11:42 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0862 Re: Politics; Shakespeare in French Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0862. Wednesday, 20 November 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1996 11:25:40 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0846 Re: Politics and Interpretation (2) From: Jesus Cora Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1996 18:23:49 UTC+0100 Subj: SHK 7.0850 Q: Shakespeare in French (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1996 11:25:40 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0846 Re: Politics and Interpretation Surajit A. Bose writes: >When self-professed Marxists (are there any other kind?) discuss ideology, the >definition they're usually invoking is Althusser's: see "Ideology and >Ideological State Apparatii" in *"Lenin and Philosophy" and Other Essays.* >Surely Bill Godshalk knows this. . . . I've read Althusser's chapter on ideology and ISAs, but it seems to me that there's a vagueness in the way "ideology" is now used--not that Althusser himself is very clear. For example, in this chapter, Althusser gives no account of change. Given his description of ideology, one would think, in fact, that ideology was extremely stable. I need hardly point out that other Marxist writers note the instability of ideological hegemony. I suppose the USSR is a good example. If you don't like the prevailing "ideology" (however you define "ideology"--e.g., "cosmic muffin" or "hairy thunderer"), just wait. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1996 18:23:49 UTC+0100 Subject: SHK 7.0850 Q: Shakespeare in French Dear Bianca Walther, I may be mistaken, but, if I remember correctly, the first French author to discuss and translate Shakespeare was Voltaire. Shakespeare was known in Spain through the first French translations which encouraged Moratin to translate them (Voltaire's translations) into Spanish. All the best.========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:40:16 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0863 Re: Hymen and Adam Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0863. Thursday, 21 November 1996. (1) From: Moray McConnachie Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 11:51:54 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0853 Re: Hymen (2) From: Steve Neville Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 08:47:45 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0859 Re: Hymen (3) From: Larry Soller Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 07:58:00 -0700 (MST) Subj: RE: SHK 7.0859 Re: Hymen (4) From: Michael Yogev Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 17:29:35 +0200 (WET) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0859 Re: Hymen (5) From: Rick Jones Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 10:41:43 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0859: Hymen, Adam (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Moray McConnachie Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 11:51:54 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0853 Re: Hymen >>I saw that production too. The actor came up out of the audience. I thought >>that she was some little old lady who had lost her way. It was quite a shock >>when she took part in the play. The fact that the part was played by a woman >>was of no consequence, but her entry into the play from the audience marred >>the play, I thought. > >I too witnessed this bizzarrerie; what made it even stranger was the programme >note from the director, Steven Pimlott: "I think one has to take the Folio at >its word and see this as a theophany: the god comes to earth, as in several of >Shakespeare's late plays. Hymen is the final manifestation of Arden's magic". And why not? Suitable to a world which largely regards marriage as a social not a religious bond (and therefore from earth among us, not lowered from heaven as in an earlier RSC production). In any case, Hymen is as much performing our (the audience's) wishes in a public, non-celebratory production, as a mystical act of union. The programme note is distinctly odd, however - perhaps the modern director's god is the audience? Besides, we tend to look with more sophistication on the theatrical use of flying wires: reserved for Peter Pan and his ilk. Incidentally, regarding the sex of Hymen: I seem to remember that in Purcell's Faery Queen (it) is played by a bass. Yours, Moray McConnachie (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Neville Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 08:47:45 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0859 Re: Hymen >ADAM DIES and Orlando goes off chatting with the Duke, >leaving Jaques to deal with the dead Adam. I had never noticed before that >Adam didn't speak in the second half of the play. Has anyone ever seen Adam >killed off in another production? See the Reinhart and Sands Films version, directed by Christine Edzard. Adam cops it there, too. Though I have earlier expressed reservations about the RSC Hymen, I have no problem at all with the death of Adam. I suppose that this is because I knew little of the play before this year, and , in the two versions that I have seen this year, (RSC and the Edzard film) he dies in both. For David Evett: Hymen does not appear at all in the Edzard Film Regards Steve Neville sjnevil@aol.com (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Soller Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 07:58:00 -0700 (MST) Subject: RE: SHK 7.0859 Re: Hymen As was noted by the discussion, the Hymen in the recent RSC production is an elderly matron, presumably a member of the local Shakespeare Society or a vocal financial supporter...it was indeed anachronistic to see her flouncing on to the stage especially because she was not any part of the production concept. IN addition I have grown weary of "aluminum poles as trees" approach which appears to be an epidemic around here. Larry Soller Phoenix College (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 17:29:35 +0200 (WET) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0859 Re: Hymen I saw the Cheek By Jowls production of AYLI a couple years ago, and thought the all-male troupe did a brilliant job throughout, but especially with the final scene including Hymen. As I recall, Hymen entered in a sort of gold body-suit and weird headress/hairdo, but the most effective part of the performance was after all the couples had been properly paired off and the remaining actors took up their musical instruments to launch into a slow, very erotic tango. The pairs of lovers began to dance, and Jacques, who had retreated downstage left (onto the apron), was drawn inexorably back toward center stage where he came into a rather guarded, even ominous face-to-face meeting with Hymen--and then the two embraced into a wonderful, nervous tango themselves. Brilliant! Michael Yogev University of Haifa (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 10:41:43 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0859: Hymen, Adam I can reply quickly to two posts about AYLI. I played Adam in a college/community/semi-pro production several years ago. I had always assumed that Adam did indeed die early in the play. Ah, but I was needed at the end of the play for "stage balance," so I made a remarkable recovery. We solved the Hymen question by cutting the scene altogether. I'm not sure I agree with the decision, but I wasn't being paid to think... Rick Jones P.S. I think I still have my acting copy: I can provide details of eliminating the Hymen scene off-list if anyone is interested. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:48:48 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0864 Re: Various Comments on LEAR Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0864. Thursday, 21 November 1996. (1) From: Tom Clayton Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 08:40:11 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0858 LEAR: Kindness and Madness (2) From: Miles Taylor Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 09:07:44 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0858 LEAR: Kindness and Madness (3) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 20:22:07 -0500 (EST) Subj: Kosintsev Lear (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 08:40:11 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0858 LEAR: Kindness and Madness I missed the antecedent(s) to these comments, so this may be impertinent both ways; but one possible cause of Lr. 3.97-106's being omitted is that the lines are not in the Folio, and, since *The Division of the Kingdoms* came out the two-text Lr. has had considerable effect on scholars, critics, and persons of the theater, with the F text usually privileged over Q because revised, to some extent by Shakespeare (just what and how much is by no means settled for certain). The effects of omission are certainly as Roger Gross says, and some if not all of the causes probably are, too. One of more of the Folio revisers of Lear, the one(s) who eliminated the moralizing and some of the laudable actions by way of moral example, seems to have been a proto-Kott. If he was Shakespeare, then Kott has a distinguished and authoritative predecessor. A question to be asked. Cheers, Tom (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Miles Taylor Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 09:07:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0858 LEAR: Kindness and Madness Roger Gross wrote: >Jennifer Kordus asks about madness and abdication in LEAR. There is something >here but I wouldn't look for it in attitudes of the times; script interp and >your knowledge of human nature will get you farther here. > >I would start (and probably end) with the line, "they told me I was everything; >'tis a lie--I am not ague-proof." Lear had lived a life completely buffered >from social reality; with terrible suddenness and violence, he is made to >confront that reality. Madness may be a kind of natural stage in the healing >process for anyone so abruptly and mercilessly educated. While I am not wholly unsympathetic to psychoanalytic readings of characters, it strikes me that the line quoted above from Lear does little to explain his madness. Years before, Richard II delivers an equally poignant speech on the disconnect between the king's two bodies, as does Henry V the night before Aginscourt. So too does the king of Sicily in Beaumont and Fletcher's Philaster (c. 1608): "Alas, what are we kings? Why do you gods place us above the rest, To be serv'd, flatter'd, and ador'd, till we Believe we hold within our hands your thunder? And when we come to try the power we have, There's not a leaf shakes at our threatenings." It seems to me that this "education" of kings in their own humanity or mortality is a fairly common trope; I imagine there are dozens of other examples. In Richard II, not only does it not drive him mad, but I would say it leads him to a new clarity in his thinking. Can't we say this, too, for Lear? Being that I am presently steeped in the Merchant of Venice for a class I'm teaching, I see an odd parallel between Lear and Shylock. Shylock occasionally borders on madness when he talks about Jessica; Lear loses all three daughters who are supposed to prop him up in his old age. Shakespeare's fathers seem more than ready to go off the deep end when their daughters betray them or go against their will. This double rejection of masculine and paternal prerogative seems more threatening to the social fabric than the education of a monarch in his own humanity. Thanks for hearing me out, Miles Taylor (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 20:22:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Kosintsev Lear This is just a note to express my joy at discovering the Kosintsev film version of King Lear, recently made available through The Scholar's Bookshelf, located at 110 Melrich Road in Cranbury, NJ, 08512. The Russian versions of Shakespeare are fascinating to watch, not the least because of the none-too-subtle commentary on the Soviet regime under which they were produced. And, needless to say, there's no need for subtitles for those of us who know the material by heart. The Kosintsev Hamlet, featuring Innokenti Smoktonovski, is also available but for a price far more dear. I'll try to pass that information along for those who are interested, as soon as a Russian friend of mine returns it next week. Andy White Urbana, IL ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:57:41 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0865 Re: Acting Companies; Popular Culture; Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0865. Thursday, 21 November 1996. (1) From: David J. Kathman Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 10:02:07 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0857 Q: Original Casts in Shakespere's Plays (2) From: Eric Weil Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 19:15:40 -0500 Subj: RE: Shakespeare & Popular Culture (3) From: David Schalkwyk Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 15:26:29 SAST-2 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0862 Re: Politics (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David J. Kathman Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 10:02:07 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0857 Q: Original Casts in Shakespere's Plays Beth Cherne wrote: >Recently a query was posted concerning originators of roles in Shakespeare's >plays. Where might one find information on the subject of acting companies and >roles they played? Andrew Gurr's recent (1996) book *The Shakespearean Playing Companies* gathers together pretty much all that is known about all the acting companies in England between 1558 and 1642. Knowledge of particular roles that actors played is spotty at best, but Gurr presents what little is known on the subject, in addition to a wealth of other information. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Weil Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 19:15:40 -0500 Subject: RE: Shakespeare & Popular Culture A few days ago someone queried on this subject. Today a colleague reminded me that in the Beatles' song, "I am the Whale" several lines from _King Lear_ , 4.6.242-50, parts of speeches by Oswald, Edgar, and Gloucester are quoted. Beginning with "Slave, thou hast slain me" and ending with "What, is he dead?" Apparently the song led some people to believe that Paul had died. Eric Weil Shaw University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Schalkwyk Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 15:26:29 SAST-2 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0862 Re: Politics I'm surprised by the claims that most self-professed Marxists subscribe to Althusser's theory of ideology. I know many Marxists who stand firmly behind E.P. Thompson's scathing attack on Althusser in _The Poverty of Theory_. I personally prefer both Gramsci's notion of hegemony (used by the left in England during the early eighties to try to account for the hold of that Thatcher exerted over English society when Althusser proved unhelpful) and Raymond Williams' notion of "structures of feeling", which is different from both pre-Althusserian notions of ideology as "false consciousness" and the Lacanian concept of the interpellation of the subject in Althusser. Then, moving away from Marxism, there are Foucauldian notions of "discourse" (influential, in different ways, in both Said's post-colonial theory and the New Historicism) and Derrida's notion of the "text", all of which attempt to address similar issues and problems. No, there are many different concepts of "ideology", Marxist or non- Marxist. And this in itself renders the claim that "everything is ideology" either false or unintelligible. David Schalkwyk University of Cape Town ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:04:33 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0866 Q: Modern-English To Be or Not To Be Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0866. Thursday, 21 November 1996. From: Michael Mullin Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 15:02:39 -0500 Subject: Modern-English To Be or Not To Be My student Karen Dempsey is looking for a modern-English translation of Hamlet's to be or not to be soliloquy. Please send it to her (or a reference thereto): kadempse@students.uiuc.edu Thanks ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:13:08 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0867 Call for Papers: SOUTHEASTERN RENAISSANCE CONFERENCE Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0867. Thursday, 21 November 1996. From: John N. Wall Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 16:23:02 -0800 Subject: Call for Papers CALL FOR PAPERS SOUTHEASTERN RENAISSANCE CONFERENCE 54th Annual Meeting University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee March 14 - 15, 1997 Now receiving papers on all aspects of renaissance culture twenty minute reading time Send: Two copies and one-page abstract postmarked by January 10, 1997 TO: Gerald Snare, President Southeastern Renaissance Conference Department of English, Tulane University New Orleans, LA 70118 A regional conference of the Renaissance Society of America ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:15:58 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0868 Press Release: Shakespeare Magazine Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0868. Thursday, 21 November 1996. From: Michael C LoMonico Date: Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996 23:11:23 EST Subject: Shakespeare Magazine Press Release ********ANNOUNCEMENT******** Georgetown University and Cambridge University Press are proud to announce the publication of SHAKESPEARE, a new magazine for Shakespeare enthusiasts, scholars, and teachers. The premiere issue which was just published includes an interview with Donald Foster about the Funeral Elegy, and several articles on Hamlet including an interview with Kenneth Branagh about his new film, four veteran teachers' approaches to teaching Hamlet, and Hamlet on the Internet. In addition, a kindergarten teacher writes how she uses The Tempest, Pericles, and The Winter's Tale to assist in the cognitive and moral growth of her students. The magazine's publishers are Michael Collins, Dean of summer school and continuing education and professor of English at Georgetown University, Peggy O'Brien, former head of education at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C.and currently vice-president for education at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Keith Rose, editor at Cambridge University Press. Nancy Goodwin, a teacher from Clinton, OK and Michael LoMonico, a teacher from Stony Brook, NY have been named editors. Deborah Warin, assistant dean of summer and continuing education at Georgetown University has been named managing editor. Board members include Jeanne Addison Roberts, American University; Judith Elstein, Atlantic City H.S.; Rex Gibson, Cambridge University Press; Miriam Gilbert, U of Iowa; Joan Langley, Oregon Shakespeare Festival; Trisha Nash, Chandler (AZ) H.S.; Patti Slagle, Seneca (Louisville, KY) H.S.; and Michael Tolaydo, St. Mary's College of Maryland. Subscriptions are $12 for one year (3 issues). Please send your name and address to: Shakespeare Georgetown University PO Box 571006 Washington, DC 20057-1006 More information is available at www.shakespearemag.com For inquries about submissions contact us at Editors@shakespearemag.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:35:22 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0869 Re: Hymen, Adam, Edzard, and Touchstone Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0869. Friday, 22 November 1996. (1) From: Steve Neville Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 10:50:17 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0863 Re: Hymen and Adam (2) From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 10:17 ET Subj: SHK 7.0859 Re: Hymen (3) From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 09:41:17 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0863 Re: Hymen and Adam (4) From: Joseph Lockett Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 17:06:07 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: Hymen and Adam -- and Touchstone (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Neville Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 10:50:17 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0863 Re: Hymen and Adam >As was noted by the discussion, the Hymen in the recent RSC production is an >elderly matron, presumably a member of the local Shakespeare Society or a >vocal financial supporter The best description that I have seen for this actor was sent to me in a private e-mail message after my original post. The writer commented that he and his friends thought that Barbara Bush had decided to take in the show, and then decided to take part. You have to have been there to know how apt this is. But hasn't this poor woman's Hymen taken enough of a battering now ? Regards Steve Neville (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 10:17 ET Subject: SHK 7.0859 Re: Hymen Having old Adam croak on stage does seem extreme--reading the play by way of Iago's account of service at the beginning of _Othello_? But it's true that his thematic function--helping to distinguish between the good old days of faithful service and brotherhood and hospitality, and the new-fangled ways in which everything is explicitly commodified (Shakespeare is only rehearsing a familiar topos of later-C16 writing about social forms)--once satisfied, and the old forms rediscovered in the depths of Arden, he's set aside. It's the general fate of servants in early modern plays--Pisanio, who has saved Posthumus from his own worst self and done his best for Imogen, is ignored at the end of _Cymbeline_, Lear's faithful Fool disappears in a manner very similar to Adam's, Tranio, who has enriched his old master Vincentio as well as his young master Lucentio by his excellent acting and negotiating, barely escapes a slit nose, etc. Serviceably, Dave Evett (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 09:41:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0863 Re: Hymen and Adam Mention of the Edzard *As You Like It* raises a question: is this film available in the US in NTSC format? Cheers, Douglas Lanier DML3@christa.unh.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Lockett Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 17:06:07 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Hymen and Adam -- and Touchstone I was in a collegiate production in 1989, directed by the RSC's Alan David (who I believe played Touchstone in the previously mentioned RSC production). He described the descent from heaven of an enormous hollow egg containing a rather floridly singing countertenor (Hymen). One night the fly system malfunctioned, tilting the egg precipitously mid-air and prompting an eminently audience-audible obscenity from within.... David delivered the Hymen speech himself in our production (though credited only as "A Voice"), as a previously-taped sound effect. Sort of the divine speech permeating all but with only emotional, not physical presence, I suppose. Oh, Adam survived in our version. And while we're discussing production- specific business, how have list members seen Touchstone's "Seven Degrees of the Lie" performed in different venues? I had the great privilege of playing Touchstone for David, who passed on to me the series of actor- produced sound effects that he used in the role. I saw something similar in the Alley Theatre (Houston)'s production a few years back, in which the on-stage band provided percussion effects for the schtick. David viewed the speech as potentially deadly without some exterior additions for audience amusement, and I'm curious to see how other performers have navigated it. P.S. Any of our British listmembers know, by chance, how to get in touch with Alan David these days? He'd just gotten married when he directed us at Rice in 1989, and I'd love to drop him a line to see how he's getting on and pass along a bit of my own news. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:03:50 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0870 Re: Large Marine Mammals and the Beatles Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0870. Friday, 22 November 1996. (1) From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 11:21:48 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0865 Re: Popular Culture (2) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 12:34:57 -0500 (EST) Subj: Walruses and Kings (3) From: Mason West Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 12:42:18 -0200 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0865 Re: Popular Culture (4) From: Whit Wales Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 12:30:45 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0865 Re: Popular Culture (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 11:21:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0865 Re: Popular Culture RE: Eric Weil's comments: Linguistic errors are very interesting. Weil cited the Lear quotations in the Beatle's song, "I Am the Whale"; it was, of course, "I Am the Walrus." (Cucu cachoo) What's interesting is that what he obviously remembered was that the title included the name of a large marine mammal, and almost 30 yrs later, a whale pops up. About the substance of his comments: The one Lear line that I heard clearly and that still sticks with me is, "Sit you down, Father; rest ye." And don't forget that in the White Album, we are told, "I've got news for you all: / The walrus was Paul." There are some who still believe that the music of the band Wings proved that Paul _did_ die! Jim Schaefer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 12:34:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Walruses and Kings Actually, Mr. Weil, the song title is "I am the Walrus", the most potent, audible lines at the end of the song are the exchange between Gloucester and Edgar: "Is he dead?" "Sit ye down, father, rest you" There are references to custard, dead dog's eyes, etc. in the song, so in terms of popular culture, this ranks as a masterpiece of Bardic interpretation. There's bound to be a paper in this one, if there hasn't been one or three written already. Andy White Urbana, IL (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mason West Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 12:42:18 -0200 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0865 Re: Popular Culture Eric Weil wrote: A few days ago someone queried on this subject. Today a colleague reminded me that in the Beatles' song, "I am the Whale" several lines from _King Lear_ , 4.6.242-50, parts of speeches by Oswald, Edgar, and Gloucester are quoted. Beginning with "Slave, thou hast slain me" and ending with "What, is he dead?" Apparently the song led some people to believe that Paul had died. It's a minor point, but you probably mean "I Am the Walrus," on The Magical Mystery Tour album. The Shakespearean quotes are incidental audio deep in the mix, and whoever identified the quotes must have had a far better stereo system than I did. I could, however, make out the final "What, is he dead?" -- Mason West mason@pobox.com (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Whit Wales Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 12:30:45 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0865 Re: Popular Culture > Today a colleague reminded me that in the Beatles' song, "I am the Whale" "I am the Walrus", perhaps? Are not the Beatles as sacred as the Bard?! What is he to Hecuba? Lear to Lennon? The connection's got to be accurate on both sides, or - Pop goes the Culture... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:11:48 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0872 Another Hypertext R3 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0872. Friday, 22 November 1996. From: Laura Blanchard Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 10:26:21 -0500 Subject: Another Hypertext R3 The American Branch of the Richard III has just completed its hypertext edition of Shakespeare's Richard III. Of particular interest to some readers will be the hypertext links to excerpts from Charles Ross's biography of Richard III, juxtaposing the dramatic events with the actual history of the time. This is not in any sense a scholarly edition--various volunteers, with varying levels of expertise, have done the initial keyboarding, HTML markup, and proofreading. (It is, however, fairly visually appealing.) We realize that at some point we will have to go back and clean it up, put in line numbers, etc. We also hope to include additional links -- to a forthcoming online edition of Holinshed's Chronicles, for example, and possibly to performance history. Regards, Laura Blanchard lblanchard@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:16:30 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0874 Q: Merry Wives Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0874. Friday, 22 November 1996. From: LaRue Love Sloan Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 16:27:45 CST Subject: Merry Wives One of our graduate students is researching the Latin lesson scene in *The Merry Wives of Windsor* (4.1) and has done an impressive amount of research. Now he is really interested in finding out how this scene is being handled in contemporary productions. He'd like to hear from directors, dramaturges, actors, scholars, or spectators. Can anybody help? LaRue Love Sloan ensloan@alpha.nlu.edu The student's e-mail address is 954scalia@alpha.nlu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:08:40 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0871 Re: Original Casts in Shakespere's Plays; Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0871. Friday, 22 November 1996. (1) From: Leslie Thomson Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 09:45:56 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0857 Q: Original Casts in Shakespere's Plays (2) From: John Drakakis Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 16:14:57 -0000 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0862 Re: Politics (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leslie Thomson Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 09:45:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0857 Q: Original Casts in Shakespere's Plays In addition to Andy Gurr's book there is *Casting Shakespeare's Plays: London actors and their roles, 1590-1642* by T.J. King (Cambridge UP, 1992). (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 1996 16:14:57 -0000 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0862 Re: Politics Sorry Bill, Althusser DOES give an account of change: when the forces of production are out of synchronization with the relations of production. All very simple really. Best wishes John Drakakis ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:14:24 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0873 Folger Open House Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0873. Friday, 22 November 1996. From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Thursday, 21 Nov 96 15:03:00 PST Subject: Folger Open House The Folger Library invites interested Shakespeareans who will be in Washington D.C. for MLA to stop by at the Folger for tea and scones on Sunday afternoon, December 29, between 12 and 4. On view will be the important exhibition of engravings by the 17th-century artist, Wenceslaus Hollar. We hope you will take a break from the crowded hotels and enjoy some quiet times with friends here at the Library. The Folger Library is on the Red Line Metro (Union Station stop) and the Blue and Orange Lines (Capitol South stop). The ride is about 15 mins. from the conference hotel at Woodley Park (Red Line). Georgianna Ziegler Reference Librarian ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 09:39:34 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0875 Re: Hymen, Adam, Edzard, and Touchstone Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0875. Monday, 25, November 1996. (1) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 14:43:00 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0869 Re: Hymen, Adam, Edzard, and Touchstone (2) From: Herman Asarnow Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 11:07:59 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0869 Re: Hymen, Adam, Edzard, and Touchstone (3) From: David Evett Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 16:19 ET Subj: SHK 7.0869 Re: Hymen, Adam, Edz (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 22:45:00 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0869 Re: Edzard's AYL (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 14:43:00 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0869 Re: Hymen, Adam, Edzard, and Touchstone Steve Neville writes of the old woman in AYLI: >.... The writer commented that he and >his friends thought that Barbara Bush had decided to take in the show, and then >decided to take part. You have to have been there to know how apt this is. But >hasn't this poor woman's Hymen taken enough of a battering now ? To which my only response was: "Wha---???" Yo, Hymen, Hymen, eh? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Herman Asarnow Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 11:07:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0869 Re: Hymen, Adam, Edzard, and Touchstone Regarding Adam in _AYL_, I would argue strongly against his dying during the play. (Disappearing may be another matter.) As has been said, he suggests the "good" old order of the society, which, in a new key, Orlando and Rosalind will again establish. There are Adam's wonderful lines when he is offering his life savings to Orlando and says of it: Which I did store to be my foster nurse When service should in my old limbs lie lame And unregarded age in corners thrown. What's interesting here is that, not only do we expect Orlando (& later Rosalind) to be better, more moral masters, but also we expect that Orlando will create a better society than his father's, in which, good as it was, "unregarded age" was still "in corners thrown." So, now that I think of it, I'd argue that Adam should be there at the end to signify that, lame as he is, he won't be thrown in some corner. Of course, it remained for other plays to take things further to the point of _The Tempest's_ more sweeping recreation of society. Herman Asarnow University of Portland (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 16:19 ET Subject: SHK 7.0869 Re: Hymen, Adam, Edz Edward Atienza did memorable takes on all the Robert Armin-type fools at Stratford, Ont. in the late 70s and 80s. His Touchstone was a vaudeville ver sion of the baggy-pants, including a loose-soled shoe with which he mocked Co rin's crackerbarrel philosophy. He took the retorts around and then on a farmcart full of hay (a nifty visual echo of the pre-Agincourt speech in Olivier's H5), with a big finish at the top, and then, if I remember it right, an almost-topple that turned into a modest bow. It was much the funniest treatment of the moment I've seen, but like lots of great clowning resistant to analysis (and reproduction, alas). The memory is partially provoked by a comment in Anthony Lane's stimulating essay (in this week's _New Yorker_) on the film boom, noting the hash most contemporary productions make of the lower-comic moments (except for Pyramus and Thisbe, which apparently is nearly actor-proof): not much training for modern actors in physical comedy, and they don't spend the time studying old films they could in order to learn the reliable tricks for themselves. Pastoral-comically, Dave Evett (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 22:45:00 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0869 Re: Edzard's AYL Douglas M Lanier: >Mention of the Edzard *As You Like It* raises a question: is this film >available in the US in NTSC format? Sam Crowl at Ohio University (Athens) had a copy 18 months ago at the 1995 Ohio Shakespeare Conference. I am not sure of the format, but we were able to watch it. As I recall, Sam told us he got the copy directly from Edzard. Herb Coursen discusses it in _Shakespeare in Production: Whose History_ (Athens: Ohio UP, 1996) 98-102. He indicates that it has not been distributed in the US when he wrote these pages. That's all I know. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 09:43:58 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0876 Re: Large Marine Mammals and the Beatles Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0876. Monday, 25, November 1996. (1) From: Stephen Buhler Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 14:54:46 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0870 Re: Masters of Allusion? (2) From: Eric Weil Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 19:18:41 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0870 Re: Large Marine Mammals and the Beatles (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Buhler Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 14:54:46 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0870 Re: Masters of Allusion? Given how often we misremember texts, it strikes me as perilous to join the discussion about "I Am the Walrus" and its incorporation of a BBC Radio broadcast of *King Lear*. But, to be bloody, bold, and dissolute: I think the refrain goes (and is published as) "Goo goo g'joob"--an unmistakably 1960s equivalent of "Hey, Nonny, Nonny." During the song's extended fade-out, the broadcast of the play grows increasingly audible at Oswald's last lines: And give the letters which thou find'st about me To Edmund, Earl of Gloucester. See him out Upon the English party. O, untimely Death! --Death-- The passage certainly fed the "Paul is dead/I buried Paul" frenzy that culminated in neoBaconian readings of the *Abbey Road* album cover. I also recall, though, how a literary allusion in the song interfered with my ability to discern these lines. Thanks to "Man, you should've seen them kicking Edgar Allan Poe" (and to the glottal delivery of the actor portraying the fatally wounded courtier), I heard "Edmund, Earl of Gloucester" as "Edgar Allan Duck"--and still can. Got one, got one, everybody's got one. Trivially, Stephen Buhler (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Weil Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 19:18:41 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0870 Re: Large Marine Mammals and the Beatles Dang! Sorry, everyone. Of course, I meant "I am the Walrus." Apologies all 'round. Eric Weil Shaw U. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 09:49:12 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0877 Re: Politics and Interpretation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0877. Monday, 25, November 1996. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 20:51:24 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0846 Re: Politics and Interpretation (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 22:56:50 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0871 Re: Politics (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 20:51:24 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0846 Re: Politics and Interpretation Andy White wrote >There seem to be people on this list who insist on political interpretations of >a decidedly leftist stripe; would it be irrelevant to point out that in >England, as well as in the Communist world (China comes to mind in particular), >popular forms of entertainment are rejected out of hand, branded "elitist" and >persecuted despite the facts? However popular drama used to be, it can hardly be said to be popular now. Just on numbers and the self-identification of class by theatre-goers (predominantly, they say they are 'middle') it must be called an elitist entertainment whether or not you approve of it being so. I recall Terry Hawkes writing in the 1960s or 70s on exit polls at theatres in Stratford on Avon. I shan't comment on White's story about the Globe funding other than to say it seems to imply that a punitive fine was imposed on Southwark council (else how did the project gain capital by it?) which, I thought, was something the British judicial system does not allow. I'd be interested in informed responses on this. I'll go and look for the story in Barry Day's book _This wooden 'O': Shakespeare's Globe reborn_ which purports to be a history of the project. Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 22:56:50 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0871 Re: Politics John Drakakis writes: >Althusser DOES give an account of change: when the forces of production are out >of synchronization with the relations of production. All very simple really. Unfortunately, I don't understand how this imbalance leads to ideological change. Perhaps a less abstract and more specific, concrete answer would lead me to an understanding of how Althusser accounts for ideological change in his chapter on ideology and ISAs. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 10:02:53 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0878 Re: LEAR; MERRY WIVES; HAMLET; ROMEO AND JULIET Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0878. Monday, 25, November 1996. (1) From: Steven Urkowitz Date: Sunday, 24 Nov 96 15:04:46 EST Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 18 Nov 1996 to 20 Nov 1996 (2) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 17:20:55 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0874 Q: Merry Wives (3) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 16:53:37 -0500 (EST) Subj: Hamlet, Translated (4) From: Tunis Romein Date: Saturday, 23 Nov 1996 09:38:07 -0500 (EST) Subj: R&J Rock (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Urkowitz Date: Sunday, 24 Nov 96 15:04:46 EST Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 18 Nov 1996 to 20 Nov 1996 Kott, Quarto, and KING LEAR: Though Peter Brook may have chosen to eliminate the dialog between two servants tidying up the stage after the ghastly blinding of Gloster in KING LEAR, and though he may have been influenced by Jan Kott, the first recorded instance of this theatrical emergence of cruelty happens in the 1623 First Folio. Playscripts get altered for many reasons. Reducing or altering the impress of minor roles seems to have been one frequent motive behind textual changes found between Q and F LEAR. I've argued this in SHAKESPEARE'S REVISION OF "KING LEAR" (1980). Any particular change may be argued about indifferently, but when seen in the context of systematic variations over 3600 lines of text, the patterns seem important and their impact cumulative. Most important, however, is the sense that these theatrical documents and all theatrical productions are not _sub specie aeternitatis_, The Bard's sacred writs. They got jumped, juggled, and even junked. Back then and today. Shakespeare may have (almost certainly did have) his hands on a lot of those tranformations we see in the alternative texts. If we are to understand how playscripts worked for those early productions, we should look at the changes that were made on them back then. And we should look at the changes made just yesterday and today. By the way, Brook's production when it was playing in NYC had moments of great power and moments of sludgy indulgence. But after the blinding of glocester, the house lights came up for the intermission while the actors onstage were exiting, while Gloster stumbled off, in the same light as the audience. Tough, smart, hurting theater. 1623 folio version? by happenstance. Sorry for the length of this note, but those liminal and dangerous edges where Shakespearean texts oddly dictate variant experiences seem to be where this particular textual scholar hangs out. Joy of the revisions, Steve Urkowitz surcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 17:20:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0874 Q: Merry Wives I'd like to hear about the latin scene. It's usually cut in performance because hardly anyone gets latin jokes these days. But it's easy to get the obscene things that Mrs Quickly hears, and that's always good for a laugh. I'd be interested in hearing how modern productions who use the scene have handled it. Helen Ostovich McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L9 (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 22 Nov 1996 16:53:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Hamlet, Translated Since my server is having difficulty sending stuff across campus, I hope other list members won't mind if I post my translation of "2B" with a brief comment or two, for Dr. Mullin's student: Last year at this time, I transposed and partially translated Hamlet into a modern version. It is my belief that Shakespeare does not need to be "translated" per se, but that certain portions of his scripts could use some clarification/translation nonetheless. Certain items of Elizabethan street slang, turns of phrase, etc., which get in the way of a modern (read: Shakespeare-hating) audience's enjoyment can easily be converted to something easier to understand and relate to. In the case of "2B", I found the bulk of it perfectly clear; only changing occasional words and phrases where I had found them misunderstood either by my cast or in other performances of the Dane I had seen. Here's my result: To be or not to be; that is the question; Whether it's nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And, by opposing, end them? To die; to sleep, No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, it's a consummation Devoutly to be wished, to die, to sleep; To sleep, perchance to dream; Ah, there's the trouble; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shrugged off all our mortal struggles, Must give us pause; there's the respect That makes life such a long catastrophe; For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, The oppressor's wrong, the proud, contemptuous taunts, The pains of despised love, the law's delay, The insolence of office and the spurns That patient merit takes from the unworthy, When he himself might make his peace With a bare blade? And who would bear his load, To grunt and sweat under a weary life, But that the fear of something after death, The undiscovered land from whose cold shores No traveller returns, puzzles the will And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others we know nothing of? So conscience does make cowards [*] And so the native hue of resolution Is sicklied over with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great power and moment With this in mind their currents turn awry, And lose the name of action. * - I much prefer the 2nd Quarto reading of this line, and personally believe this speech to be a contemplation of action (RE: the assassination of Claudius, and hence the risks involved) rather than suicide. After all, the last word in this piece is "action", not "Death". Those who would pillory me for this effort, keep in mind I didn't do it with present company in mind; it was part of an entirely different project, designed to re-create the Eastern European experience of Hamlet as a modern poetic hero. Andy White Urbana, Illinois (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tunis Romein Date: Saturday, 23 Nov 1996 09:38:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: R&J Rock I sympathize with the teenage point of view concerning the new "Romeo and Juliet," namely that the film is wonderful except for the Shakespearean language. The language is distracting at best, confusing at worst. Perhaps the film would have been more coherent if the speeches had been translated into expressive modern English. After all, the screenwriters must have cut the R&J text by 90%, so why not go one small step further and eliminate it entirely? If nothing else, this would have discouraged the next couple of generations of high school teachers from using this film to "teach" R&J to millions of ninth graders. If students are going to watch a movie rather than reading the play, it might as well be Zeffirelli. Tunis Romein Charleston, SC USA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 10:08:55 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0879 URL for Hypertext R3 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0879. Monday, 25, November 1996. (1) From: Karen Pirnie Date: Saturday, 23 Nov 1996 09:08:39 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0872 Another Hypertext R3 (2) From: Laura Blanchard Date: Monday, 25 Nov 1996 08:36:18 -0500 Subj: URL for Hypertext R3 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Pirnie Date: Saturday, 23 Nov 1996 09:08:39 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0872 Another Hypertext R3 Laura Blanchard: Do you happen to have the URL address available? Thanks -- Karen Pirnie University of Alabama (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Blanchard Date: Monday, 25 Nov 1996 08:36:18 -0500 Subject: URL for Hypertext R3 I've had several offlist requests for the URL for the Richard III Society's hypertext R3, which leads me, shamefacedly, to apologize for having omitted it from the previous posting: http://www.webcom.com/blanchrd/bookcase/shaksper/ Regards, Laura Blanchard lblanchard@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 10:13:05 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0880 Re: Folger Open House Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0880. Monday, 25, November 1996. (1) From: Pat Dunlay Date: Saturday, 23 Nov 1996 15:30:15 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0873 Folger Open House (2) From: Alan Young Date: Monday, 25 Nov 1996 08:46:03 AST4ADT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0873 Folger Open House (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Dunlay Date: Saturday, 23 Nov 1996 15:30:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0873 Folger Open House Many thanks for the invitation to tea from Georgianna Ziegler at the Folger. I happily will find myself visiting and will certainly try to make it. Does the Folger have a play in production over the holiday? I'll be there from Dec.27 to Jan. 2. Or perhaps someone knows of anlther theatre that has a Shakespearean production at that time? Thanks. Pat Dunlay (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Young Date: Monday, 25 Nov 1996 08:46:03 AST4ADT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0873 Folger Open House Georgianna, I received your message about the Hollar exhibition at the Folger. I'm sorry that I will miss it because I have a long-standing interest in Hollar's work and once published a big (for me) essay on Hollar. Is there a catalogue of any kind being produced for the exhibition? I'd like to get hold of it if possible, since I know how hard it can be to get such things even only a few months after the event. Hope all is well with you. Alan Young ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 10:16:49 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0881 Q: Huntington Library Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0881. Monday, 25, November 1996. From: Michelle Haslem Date: Monday, 25 Nov 1996 12:39:41 +0000 Subject: Huntington Library -please help A graduate student at the University of Liverpool, U.K., I am in the process of applying for fellowships at a number of U.S. libraries and institutions, primarily the Huntington, the Folger Shakespeare and the Newberry Library. To support my applications i need to list some of the material I hope to consult at these libraries, but so far I have been unable to find out exactly what resources are available. Is it possible to access their holdings on the internet? If so, can somebody let me know exactly how to go about it? Alternatively, is there anyone familiar with the holdings of the Huntington library which relate to early Stuart masques and entertainments (particularly Ben Jonson's) who could drop me a line to give me some advice. I would be eternally grateful, as all my attempts so far have drawn a blank. Michelle Haslem ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 09:04:32 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0882 Re: New Globe; Politics and Interpretation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0882. Tuesday, 26 November 1996. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 25 Nov 1996 17:30:45 -0800 Subj: Globe v. Southwark Council (2) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Monday, 25 Nov 1996 21:46:41 -0500 (EST) Subj: Define Elitism, Please! (3) From: John Drakakis Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 09:40:02 -0000 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0877 Re: Politics and Interpretation (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 25 Nov 1996 17:30:45 -0800 Subject: Globe v. Southwark Council Following up the recent claim that the Globe project received a large boost when it won a court case with Southwark Council, I looked in Barry Day's _This Wooden O_ (London: Oberon, 1996). Day's attitude towards the council is clear: "In May local elections changed its complexion dramatically from a blushing pink to a choleric red and now some old scores could be settled." (p. 139) But my favourite is... "The trouble with theoretical socialism is that it doesn't often come face to face with the brute force of the commercial imperative." (p. 145) Which patronizing tones miss the point that a reaction is created precisely out of contact with the brute force of capital. Day would, no doubt, enjoy reporting that the project benefited from the legal case but he reports that the case was settled out of court (p. 148) and quotes David Orr's opinion: "We came out with zero. Not a penny in compensation from Freshwater. We'd wasted three years getting back what we had in the first place but along the way we'd lost both credibility and momentum." (p. 149) Maybe it was a different court case... Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Monday, 25 Nov 1996 21:46:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Define Elitism, Please! Mr. Egan wrote: >However popular drama used to be, it can hardly be said to be popular now. Just >on numbers and the self-identification of class by theatre-goers >(predominantly, they say they are 'middle') it must be called an elitist >entertainment whether or not you approve of it being so. I recall Terry Hawkes >writing in the 1960s or 70s on exit polls at theatres in Stratford on Avon. That's funny. A friend of mine and I just raised a production of Hamlet in Sidney, Illinois, population 900 (excluding cattle). The cast consisted of kids from local grade - to - high schools, a smattering of adults, a couple students from the U of I for good measure. Tickets were $5 a head, with the exception of a Benefit performance we held to raise money for reopening a local clinic (Sidney recently lost its clinic when the HMO-owner decided it wasn't profit-worthy. If they can raise enough dough to reopen the place, they'll get a doctor back). Attendees for both weeks were a combination of locals, parents of the cast, and classmates. Not a tuxedo in sight -- lots of blue jeans, scraggly hair, sneakers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't fit your stereotype of theater, does it, Mr. Egan? There are still many of us who practice it because it is our way of enriching lives -- both our own and that of our neighbors. It is true that people with too much money have a patronizing interest in the arts -- but for you to take that small fact and tar the whole profession with one brush is extreme. It's also one of the reasons I frankly despise Marxists, because they haven't spent much time in the hinterlands as I have, getting to know real people who get real enjoyment and meaning from the theatrical experience. Andy White Urbana, IL (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 09:40:02 -0000 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0877 Re: Politics and Interpretation I think Bill Godshalk can put off the day no longer...He will have to go back and read some Marx! Capital vols 1-3 might be a start. You can't do a practical criticism of Althusser's ISA essay without knowing where it's coming from and what issues it is addressing. Il n'y a pas hors de texte as the late Maurice Chevalier used to say Best wishes John D ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 09:10:49 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0883 Folger Holiday Hours; DC Productions During MLA Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0883. Tuesday, 26 November 1996. (1) From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Monday, 25 Nov 96 14:33:00 PST Subj: Folger Holiday Hours (2) From: Edward Gero Date: Monday, 25 Nov 1996 15:41:44 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0880 Re: Folger Open House: Productions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Monday, 25 Nov 96 14:33:00 PST Subject: Folger Holiday Hours Here are the hours of opening for the Folger Library during the Holidays (I don't believe these have been posted before): Closed Dec. 25, 26 Open Dec. 27, 8:45-4:45 Dec. 28, 9-12, 1-4:30 (We WILL page rare materials that Saturday.) Dec. 29 (Library closed but MLA Tea from 12-4) Dec. 30, and 31, 8:45-4:45 Closed Jan. 1 Open Jan.2 etc. regular hours (8:45-4:45; Saturdays 9-12, 1-4:30; closed Federal Holidays, including Jan. 20 for Inauguration) Many SHAKSPERians are already registered Folger readers and will merely need to update their cards. Those of you at the Ph.D. or postdoctoral level who would like to use the Folger during MLA should come with two letters of reference and a Photo I.D. in hand. Address letters of reference to Mr. Richard Kuhta, Librarian. Georgianna Ziegler Reference Librarian (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Gero Date: Monday, 25 Nov 1996 15:41:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0880 Re: Folger Open House: Productions There are two productions available during the Folger Conference. The first is one at the Folger and the other at The Shakespeare Theatre. The Folger is producing a "Child's Christmas" with the Dylan Thomas piece among others, with Katherine Flye, actress and Artistic Director of Interact Theatre and Ted Van Griethuysen, a colleague of mine from The Shakespeare Theatre. The Shakespeare Theatre is producing "Antony and Cleopatra" directed by Ron Daniels late of the RSC and ART in Boston, with Tom Hewitt as Antony, Helen Carey as Cleopatra and yours truly as Enobarbus. Further information about the production and ticket information can be obtained from The Shakespeare Theatre's homepage at . Edward Gero Shakespeare Theatre Washington, DC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 09:19:11 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0884 Re: New *Romeo and Juliet* Film Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0884. Tuesday, 26 November 1996. (1) From: Amy Ulen Date: Monday, 25 Nov 1996 14:21:15 -0800 Subj: Teaching R&J (2) From: Amy Ulen Date: Monday, 25 Nov 1996 14:32:49 -0800 Subj: R&J Movie Review (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy Ulen Date: Monday, 25 Nov 1996 14:21:15 -0800 Subject: Teaching R&J Tunis Romein wrote: > I sympathize with the teenage point of view concerning the new "Romeo and > Juliet," namely that the film is wonderful except for the Shakespearean > language. The language is distracting at best, confusing at worst. As a high school English teacher, I have found the opposite to be true. I have seen the film twice, and both times I heard kids reciting lines along with the film. When talking to students at school, they express their enjoyment of the language of the film. Oddly enough, the kids I have talked with have the same complaints about the film that I do (filming techniques, etc.). > If nothing else, this would have discouraged the next couple of generations of > high school teachers from using this film to "teach" R&J to millions of ninth > graders. If students are going to watch a movie rather than reading the play, > it might as well be Zeffirelli. I find this a frightening statement. I have NEVER used a film to teach a play or novel, and I don't think that any good teacher would either! Films should be used for comparisons, but not as a substitute for reading the text. Amy Ulen Spokane, WA (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy Ulen Date: Monday, 25 Nov 1996 14:32:49 -0800 Subject: R&J Movie Review SHAKSPERians, My friend, Vince Kimball, sent the following movie review to several of us that attended the 1996 Teaching Shakespeare Institute at the Folger Shakespeare Library last summer. Vince gave me permission to pass the review on to you. Vince Kimball wrote: And then, speaking of R&J, the movie -- you all still have not gotten the real dirt and gritty insides of it yet, have you? Notice the ever-present statue that is photographed over and over and over again throughout the whole thing? Look familiar? Not if you don't know what "Christ of the Andes" is. Research what it is and why it was erected. "The monument to eternal peace was cast from the melted bronze of an old cannon which the Spanish left at the time of Argentine independence. The statue lies on the borderline between the countries of Argentina and Chile, who were at war. The statue bears this inscription, 'Sooner shall these mountains crumble into dust than Chileans and Argentines shall break the peace which, at the feet of Christ, the Redeemer, they have sworn to maintain.'" Notice the fact that Montague's final soliloquy about erecting the statue honoring Juliet is cut. Notice the fact that instead of ending on a positive note that the whole tragedy concept is exploded because nothing really changes-- Capulet and Montague are not seen shaking hands. The party is like an out of control version of Carnival? The obvious South American setting? The peasants in the background who are on the outside and are caught up in the whole thing but are not seen or thought of? The whole issue of prostitution as a way of life? Lady Capulet is the only blonde in the Capulet family? When she dresses in that high speed beginning sequence, notice the music playing in the background (Mozart's Germanic symphony?) Notice the playing of the Liebestod (love-death theme) from Tristan and Isolde (Wagner -- very Aryan!) as Romeo and Juliet lay tangled in death at the end? The ultimate final crashing symbol (cymbal? sic) as to what's written on the gun Juliet kills herself with (PRE DE - TERMINATOR -- Arnold Schwartz... would be so proud! talk about the ultimate German bashing!?) Check out the history of Argentina after W W II. The cross that is tattooed on Friar Laurence's back is a Teutonic Runic cross that he covers with his Catholic robes! He even has to show his catamytes away (the young boys who serve him in, I bet, more ways than one.) This director is laying it on thick! But it has so many other levels that I couldn't begin to address them all! [Some deleted] This is the stuff that dissertations are made of! And no one has gotten it? Am I the only one? The party scene costumes were all from famous operas. Romeo was wearing the armor of the "fortune's fool" of all time, Parsifal (another Wagner steal from Norse and Celtic legend); his home boys were dressed as Valkyries; Mercutio in drag was dressed as the infamous Lulu (Wedekind's version) complete with the exact wig and outfit and even did a "number" on a staircase... And on it goes.... This director, whoever he is, is one of the most well-read, creative, and literate people to come out of Hollywood in ages. Most likely [he] is not American. Sorry, little dig there. Let me get off my soap box. Vince ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 09:21:31 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0885 Re: Huntington Library Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0885. Tuesday, 26 November 1996. From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Monday, 25 Nov 96 18:38:18 UT Subject: RE: SHK 7.0881 Q: Huntington Library If you go to the Huntington don't miss the Francis Bacon Library in Claremont. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 09:28:43 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0886 The Shakespeare Databank Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0886. Tuesday, 26 November 1996. From: Louis Marder <76411.3613@CompuServe.COM> Date: Monday, 25 Nov 96 14:06:36 EST Subject: The Shakespeare Databank TO SHAKESPEARE SCHOLARS, TEACHERS, STUDENTS, AND BARDOLOGISTS I am, and have been, compiling, digesting, and condensing for on-line world-wide computer retrieval, a universal treasury of facts, opinions, and critical commentary of every kind and "ism", It will consist of analytical plot susmmaries, character analyses, themes of the plays and poems, variorum annotations, pictorial illustrations, sources of the plays, annotated topical bibliographies, book and theater reviews, specialized vocabularies and glossaries, language, verse, imagery, proper names, place names, facts about the first editions and editors, theater, acting, staging history, computerized information and data processing, relations with other data bases, self study and teaching materials, historical data, political and religious history, cultural data of every kind, Shakespeare's biography, reputation, topical knowledge (law, medicine, music, etc.), contempories, calendar of dates, Shakespeare in the arts and popular culture, theories of disputed authorship, 1000's of questions and answers, and all kinds of miscellaneous information and interesting triva on every related subject totalling in all about ninety categories. Everything will be entered in single listed sentences (or quoted paragraphs where necessary) for simplicity and ease of comprehension. Wherever possible or necessary, bibliogrphical data, bibliographies, and numerous cross-references will be listed for each item or group, and further reference in the original sources and for extended reading. It will be open ended so that new or newly compiled material can be entered almost daily. Shakespeare dictionaries, thesauri, encyclopedia, manuals, handbooks, outline books, study guides, as well as scholarly books, periodicals, master's essays, dissertations, computerized materials, lectures, and privately submitted materials, will be ransacked for what they have to offer. If your book or article has been published with limited circulation, or your work has not been published at all, here is your opportunity to give your research and scholarship immediate and on-line circulation world-wide If you have ever appeared in print, you will want to be represented, preferably compiled and digested by yourself for utmost accuracy, fidelity, and authority If you want to assume or edit a large topic and enlist your own Associates, that would be very helpful If your are a Professor who teaches Shakespeare and English Renaissance literature who requires a research paper to complete the course, you may assign one or all of your students to work under your supervision and/or yours and mine if they write to me with your approval. If you are a professor, scholar, teacher, student, or Shakespeare enthusiast who would like to develop one of the many topics, your help would be much appreciated, and your by-line as an Associate of the SDB in the SDB would give you departmental recognition, worthy satisfaction, and permanent distinction for helping everyone to a greater understanding and appreciation of Shakespeare. If you are interested in any aspect of this project, please write to Louis Marder, 1217 Ashland Avenue, Evanston, Illinois 60202-1103 or use E-mail 76411.3613@Compuserve.com Louis Marder PS: I would also like to hear from all those who enlisted as Associates over the years and with whom I lost contact. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 09:35:43 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0887 A Midsummer Night's Dream Study Guide Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0887. Tuesday, 26 November 1996. From: Amy Ulen Date: Monday, 25 Nov 1996 14:39:32 -0800 Subject: Midsummer Study Guide The students of the Moscow Alternative School Center in Moscow, Idaho, have created a study guide for A Midsummer Night's Dream. The study guide is almost complete, and we invite you to visit our site: http://www.moscow.com/Education/masc/shake/mid-sg.html We also invite you to send additional study questions, URLs, etc. for inclusion in the study guide. Send these to ophelia@cet.com -- all other comments may be sent to masc@moscow.com. Amy Ulen ophelia@cet.com Spokane, WA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 09:42:31 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0888 Q: Shakespeare and the Unities Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0888. Tuesday, 26 November 1996. From: Keith Ghormley Date: Monday, 25 Nov 1996 22:22:35 -0600 Subject: Q: Shakespeare and the Unities Shakespeare and the Unities: Shakespeare paid little heed to the classical unities (time, place, and action), especially when the story just couldn't be stuffed into the confines of 24 hours and one location. In H5, for example, the speaker of the prologue invites the audience to get ready for a story whose scenes span time and space. [For 'tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings, / Carry them here and there; jumping o'er times, / Turning the accomplishment of many years / Into an hour-glass.] Was this a self-conscious effort to prepare his Unity-expecting audience, who might otherwise be troubled? Question 1: Was Shakespeare doing anything unusual here? Were all the other Elizabethan playwrights already setting aside strict conformity to the unities in the same way? Was Shakespeare an innovator, or was he just part of an established trend? Question 2: In my understanding, the Italian theater at the time paid much stricter regard to the unities, No? Did they ever come to the same kind of freedom? I can imagine that the Italians might have scoffed at Shakespeare's cavalier regard for the unities as provincial and barbaric. Do we have any record of the Italian reaction to the English practice? Question 3: Were any of Shakespeare's plays performed in Italy at the time? If so, how did the Italians react to his violation of the unities? If not, could his disregard for the unities have been one of the reasons nobody wanted to produce his plays in Italy? Any answers will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Keith Ghormley ghormley@inetnebr.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:31:02 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0889 Re: New *Romeo and Juliet* Film Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0889. Wednesday, 27 November 1996. (1) From: Milla Riggio Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 10:13:53 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0884 Re: New *Romeo and Juliet* Film (2) From: Jean Peterson Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 13:04:38 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0884 Re: New *Romeo and Juliet* Film (3) From: Renee Stiles Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 18:55:30 EST Subj: [Re: New *Romeo and Juliet* Film] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 10:13:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0884 Re: New *Romeo and Juliet* Film Dear Amy Ulen: Thank you for Vince Kimball's notes on the new R&J. I just saw the film, thought it was technically brilliant (though, I must say, for me totally unmoving emotionally). And the technical brilliance did bespeak a lot of care in the choice of details embedded in the highly symbolic kind of (what I call) neo-realism. It's great to have the confirmation of some details, though the intertextuality of film and opera and so forth is so elaborate as to be a tad distracting, I must say. What kind of whole conception did all this add up to? For you? Since you've offered the start of a dissertation on the subject.... Best, Milla Riggio (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 13:04:38 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0884 Re: New *Romeo and Juliet* Film *** If students are going to watch a movie rather than reading the play, it might as well be Zeffirelli.*** Would Tunis Romein care to explain why? Because it's the film s/he prefers? Because it embodies a more conventional (but equally anachronistic), idealized version of what "Shakespeare" is supposed to be like? (E.g., sumptuous 16th-century costumes, ornately decorative locations and settings--conventions more akin to 19th-century pictoral realism than anything seen on the Globe stage). Romein is, of course, entitled to personally enjoy one film rather than another, but I see no reason why Zeffirelli's should be "elevated" to canonical status and pedagogical tool. Once could be just as snide about the way Hussey and Whiting "use the Shakespearean language" (a considerable portion replaced by gasps, gulps, heavy breathing, inarticulate gurgles and extra-textual interpolations like "oh...GOD!!!") as many critics are being about DiCaprio and Danes. Jean Peterson Bucknell University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Renee Stiles Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 18:55:30 EST Subject: [Re: New *Romeo and Juliet* Film] Yet again I hate to differ with the high school teacher who says that the " children " these days, all like the language of the film. I know that some do not, and for that I have to give them a little credit- today I find that most high school students prefer to actually understand the play rather than suffer through the long and sometimes trecherous vocabulary. I am a senior in high school and personally I do like the vocabulary in the film but I know that people like me are few in numbers. The friends I went with constantly turned to me and wondered what they were talking about and I must admit, sometimes I was lost but we got the hang of the language after awhile. Overall-students my age loved the movie and not to repeat myself- " it isn't just because we want to get a good look at Clair or Decaprio! " because it wasn't- we love the story in general and I am not sure if it would have made a difference if it were two geriatric actors or if were who they were- I know that I still would have paid the $5 to go see it! Renee Stiles, Upward Bound Student, SLU ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:38:22 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0890 Re: Shakespeare and the Unities Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0890. Wednesday, 27 November 1996. (1) From: C. David Frankel Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 12:05:50 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0888 Q: Shakespeare and the Unities (2) From: Rick Jones Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 16:19:14 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0888 Q: Shakespeare and the Unities (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 12:05:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0888 Q: Shakespeare and the Unities > Shakespeare paid little heed to the classical unities (time, place, and > action), especially when the story just couldn't be stuffed into the confines > of 24 hours and one location. If by the classical unities you mean Aristotle, then you need to revise the question. In the Poetics the only unity Aristotle mentions is unity of action (something that, arguably, Shakespeare also adheres to). Although Aristotle mentions place and duration of action it is not until the Renaissance and after that these became codified in theory, though often ignored in practice. C. David Frankel University of South Florida (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 16:19:14 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0888 Q: Shakespeare and the Unities Re Keith Ghormley's question about the "classical unities." There's no such thing: the concept of unities of time, place and action was a neo-Classical (mostly Italian, partially French) invention. Aristotle speaks of what can be called a unity of action, but mentions time only in passing, and place not at all. The neo-Classicists, on the other hand, emphasized time and place even more than action (cf. the furor over Corneille's _Le Cid_). Certainly Shakespeare was not alone among English playwrights in ignoring unities: witness _Gorboduc_ or _Cambyses_ or _Doctor Faustus_ or _Bartholomew Fair_. Sidney's Defense of Poesie seems, at least, to revel in the difference between England and Everywhere Else. Still, I suspect that English playwrights ignored the unities not for patriotic reasons, but because 1) they could and 2) they felt like it. I know of no contemporary Italian productions of Shakspeare-- they were as parochial in their way as Shakespeare was in his. Hope this helps. Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:42:20 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0891 Re: Huntington Library Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0891. Wednesday, 27 November 1996. (1) From: Marlin E. Blaine Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 11:30:36 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0885 Re: Huntington Library (2) From: Jean R. Brink Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 13:54:51 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0885 Re: Huntington Library (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marlin E. Blaine Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 11:30:36 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0885 Re: Huntington Library > If you go to the Huntington don't miss the Francis Bacon Library in Claremont. The Bacon Library in Claremont was a lovely place to work and it held a remarkable collection not only of Baconiana but also of emblem books. It recently closed, however, and the Huntington took over the bulk of its holdings. I believe that the rare books will constitute a distinct collection within the Huntington, while the reference books that were not sold off in the sale of duplicates held last spring are to be integrated into the Huntington's reference collection. Marlin E. Blaine (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean R. Brink Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 13:54:51 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0885 Re: Huntington Library Just a note to clarify the location of the Francis Bacon library. The collection is now at the Huntington Library. Jean R. Brink English Department Arizona State University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:48:45 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0892 Re: Elitism and Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0892. Wednesday, 27 November 1996. (1) From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 19:09:46 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0882 Elitism (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 21:25:44 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0882 (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 22:09:18 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0882 Re: Politics and Interpretation (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 19:09:46 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0882 Elitism On elitism: a true story. A fish and chip shop owner in Bridge of Allan protested violently to me many years ago about the 'elitism' of the local Arts Centre. When asked what he wanted instead of the fare provided he said 'Verdi'! 'Verdi'! - but then, he was Italian. Surely, given all his other pronouncements, Gabriel Egan must recognise that the definition of 'elite' culture is very precisely socially and historically generated - and that at any time Shakespeare might be appropriated in very different interests? David Lindley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 21:25:44 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0882 Andy White wrote, >It is true that people with too much money have a patronizing interest in the >arts -- but for you to take that small fact and tar the whole profession with >one brush is extreme. It's also one of the reasons I frankly despise Marxists, >because they haven't spent much time in the hinterlands as I have, getting to >know real people who get real enjoyment and meaning from the theatrical >experience. No, you're right! I've been mixing with imaginary people on the coast. It makes all the difference... Best of luck with your productions. Gabriel Egan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 22:09:18 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0882 Re: Politics and Interpretation I think John Drakakis and I agree: Althusser can not be understood unless one reads Marx first. But I would go further and ask: why read Althusser at all? And, of course, Marx cannot be understood without a thorough knowledge of Hegel, Kant, Descartes, and, some would argue, Plato. No, there are texts--all the way down. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:53:02 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0893 Re: Popular Culture; Modern "To be . . ." Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0893. Wednesday, 27 November 1996. (1) From: David Hale Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 96 13:42:23 EST Subj: [Re: Popular Culture] (2) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 18:47:36 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0878 Hamlet, translated (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Hale Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 96 13:42:23 EST Subject: [Re: Popular Culture] Another example of Shakespeare in popular culture is a novel for young people by Avi Wortis, "Romeo and Juliet Together (and Alive!) At Last" (Orchard Books, 1987). The story is about a group of eighth graders who put on the play; there are numerous parallels between the play and its cast. The whole book is quite funny. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 18:47:36 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0878 Hamlet, translated The "respect" doesn't make life a catastrophe, it makes calamity long-lived. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:59:23 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0894 Q: New Globe Schedule Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0894. Wednesday, 27 November 1996. From: Barrett Fisher Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996 11:17:11 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Globe Schedule Can anyone advise me on whether firm dates have been established for the first season at the new Globe? I did some quick browsing on the Web site and couldn't find the information. My college runs a study abroad program in England every other year; because of the change in the RSC Stratford schedule we are seriously contemplating a change from a fall to a spring program; however, if the new Globe schedule runs from mid-May to early September (as I have heard rumored), we may be less likely to catch those performances during a spring program which would end in early May than we would in a fall program which begins in late August (sorry for the Dickensian sprawl of that sentence!) Also, does anyone know if the new Globe will have a repertory schedule like the RSC, or a serial run? Again, this makes a big difference in deciding when to come in on a season. I hope this sort of query is appropriate for this list. Barrett Fisher Bethel College (MN)========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 10:56:50 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0895 Re: Politics: Marxists, Elitism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0895. Sunday, 1 December 1996. (1) From: Moray McConnachie Date: Wednesday, 27 Nov 1996 15:08:02 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Marxists Vs. The Globe (2) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Wednesday, 27 Nov 1996 11:20:35 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: Popular Culture (3) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 27 Nov 1996 18:40:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: Elitism, Revisited (4) From: William Proctor Williams Date: Thursday, 28 Nov 96 15:00 CST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0882 Re: New Globe; Politics and Interpretation (5) From: Belinda Johnston Date: Friday, 29 Nov 1996 15:48:39 +1100 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0882 Re: New Globe; Politics and Interpretation (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Moray McConnachie Date: Wednesday, 27 Nov 1996 15:08:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Marxists Vs. The Globe I would be interested in knowing the factual basis of Andrew Walker White's story about the Globe funding. Perhaps the word Marxist is being used in an extremely broad sense, but having lived next door to Southwark for twenty years, in Lambeth, which is as left a wing council as one could find, Southwark has usually been moderate politically. I don't think it's unreasonable for any council to think "who will it benefit?" about any planning application. It seems to me that the Globe has become a very worthwhile enterprise, but it could have become a commercial tourist-trap quite easily. Nor do I think unhappiness with elitism in this country, particularly in the world of arts funding, is anything other than positive, though of course what one does about that is open to debate. Yours, Moray McConnachie (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Wednesday, 27 Nov 1996 11:20:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Popular Culture "Frankly despise" sounds a bit strong to me. If by "the Marxists" Andy White means the thugs controlling Serbia I suppose despising them is in order. But otherwise I am pulled up short. What happened to hating the sin, not the sinner? Unfortunately, the rapid exchanges on the net sometimes lead to hasty overgeneralizations. It gets us involved not only in insulting one another, but in playing that old "I'm blacker than you" sort of game. And who's going to win it? the guy from the small town in the middle of nowhere, where the RSC never stops to play? the guy from the inner city (for example, me), who really can't afford to attend the theater more than once or twice a year? the minority person living who cares where since wherever she goes she is always still the object of discrimination, and can almost never see the story of lives like her own represented on the screen or the stage? I suggest we all take a deep breath, go home, and read a book. _The Winter's Tale_ might be a good place to start. Or anything by Raymond Williams. Robert Appelbaum (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 27 Nov 1996 18:40:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Elitism, Revisited I have been rightly chastised for my extreme language with regard to Marxisim on this list --normally, I don't express myself quite as subjectively, but to be honest I felt provoked. Mr. Egan, I don't mean to denigrate your experience with elite segments of our society, but just because this elite insists on hobnobbing with performing artists doesn't make us a part of their master plan to rule the world. Your ideological approach to theatre ignores the reasons most of us become involved in the profession in the first place -- and no, it isn't money or fame that attracts us. We suffer long hours of training, insults from our instructors, we forego a normal private life due to frequent rehearsals and perforamnces -- holidays included -- and if it were money or notoriety we wanted, there would be easier ways to do it, more convenient by far than this. What Marx didn't tell you was that artists have an impulse to create -- irrational, perhaps, but there it is. I feel it is my talent, what I was put here to do, and whether I make money or not doesn't matter nearly as much as whether I succeed at the craft in some way. My experience with the elite is that far from making theater possible, they stifle the very creative impulses that brought us to the stage in the first place. Theater Boards of Directors are notorious in my experience for refusing to take risks, refusing to recognize the sacrifices made. Perhaps if you took time to see (or see again, I should hope) the CHinese film "Farewell My Concubine", which details the impossible rigors of the performing arts, and teh ways in which the elite controls and perverts the artist -- maybe then you'd see the tragic results from the facile theories you use to dismiss what we try to do. Andy White Urbna, IL (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Proctor Williams Date: Thursday, 28 Nov 96 15:00 CST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0882 Re: New Globe; Politics and Interpretation As always, I hate to jump into this mess, but have not Bill Godshalk, and John Drakakis forgotten that with playwrights from at least the Elizabethan, Jacobean, and Caroline periods (the odd exceptions being Jonson and Webster) they were writing scripts and not "texts"? I find Andy White's most recent posting to be much more to the point. I grew up in a town of 100 people. We could have put on +Hamlet+ though the killings might have been real. In other words, stop the critical posturing and get back to the scripts and the theatre. William Proctor Williams Department of English Northern Illinois University (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Belinda Johnston Date: Friday, 29 Nov 1996 15:48:39 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0882 Re: New Globe; Politics and Interpretation Andrew White's little cattle-town idyll was a fine, even faintly comical, example of the failure of anit-Marxists to think in terms of broader material and ideological structures. Instead, White resorts to a narrowly individualising, not to mention patronising, mode and in the process produces a tale of taking theatre to the cowpokes which is itself naievely elitist. Many of us have met the 'real' people, Andy, some of us even *were* 'real' people (before we went to university of course) but some of us are well aware that waxing lyrical about the 'real' people (and staking your legitimacy on you claim to *know* them) is at best priggish, at worst, simply elitist. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:05:35 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0896 Re: New *Romeo and Juliet* Film Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0896. Sunday, 1 December 1996. (1) From: Bruce Fenton Date: Thursday, 28 Nov 1996 07:33:06 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0889 Re: New *Romeo and Juliet* Film (2) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Wednesday, 27 Nov 1996 11:31:54 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0884 Re: New *Romeo and Juliet* Film (3) From: David Evett Date: Friday, 29 Nov 1996 19:22:22 -0500 Subj: Rockin' Romeo (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Fenton Date: Thursday, 28 Nov 1996 07:33:06 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0889 Re: New *Romeo and Juliet* Film Someone said that movies are no substitute for the text in teaching the plays. Who on earth came up with the idea that text should be used at all in teaching? Certainly the author did not intend for them to be read- but performed. In my opinion the best way to learn the plays is by seeing them performed- ideally on the stage and if not then in a movie theater- if that is unavailable then by reading them aloud and finally, as a last resort, by simply reading the texts. I would guess that most of us who love and appreciate the works first gained that love by exposure to a movie or play, not by reading. -Bruce Fenton (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Wednesday, 27 Nov 1996 11:31:54 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0884 Re: New *Romeo and Juliet* Film Vince Kimball writes of the director of the new Romeo and Juliet: >This director, whoever he is, is one of the most well-read, creative, and >literate people to come out of Hollywood in ages. Most likely [he] is not >American. Baz Lurman is Australian, and tends to chew with his mouth open. Cinematically at least. I think he learned it from Peter Greenaway. He was famous in Drama School for putting his fist through windows in order to express himself. Cheers, Tom (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 29 Nov 1996 19:22:22 -0500 Subject: Rockin' Romeo Vince Kimball's observations on the Baz Luhrmann _Romeo and Juliet_ are stimulating but not very satisfactory, because they are not very systematic and because they are mostly phrased as quasi-rhetorical questions to which a reader (e.g. me) might have partial but not complete answers. Kimball does identify a set of Teutonic references that are, indeed, present in the film; these are placed in a generally Latin American context (he refers to Argentina and Chile, but the picture was filmed in Mexico). What he does not do to my satisfaction is to draw the references into a persuasive pattern that also includes, in any way meaningful to me at this stage of my ignorance or stupidity, the text of the play, as we find it in quarto or folio or Wells and Taylor, or even as slashed and scrambled into the screenplay of this movie. Do they mean that _Romeo and Juliet_ is a Fascist screed? That parents/the Roman church/any church//by themselves/in a particularly South American or American configuration/in any/configuration are Fascist? That Fascism seeks out and destroys young love? He notes that Lady Capulet is blond. So is Romeo: what does this mean? Why is he so sure the choir boys are also catamites--as far as I can remember from my single viewing of the film Friar Lawrence is not shown addressing compromising speeches or gestures to them. To repeat, it's all very interesting but not yet very persuasive. Skeptically, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:10:41 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0897 Re: Shakespeare and the Unities Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0897. Sunday, 1 December 1996. (1) From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 27 Nov 1996 11:15 ET Subj: SHK 7.0888 Q: Shakespeare and the Unities (2) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 27 Nov 1996 14:46:47 -0500 (EST) Subj: Italian Unities (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 27 Nov 1996 11:15 ET Subject: SHK 7.0888 Q: Shakespeare and the Unities Sidney does in fact complain of the failure of English drama to observe the unities, since even _Gorboduc_, the best he knows, "is faulty both in place and time, the two necessary companions of all corporal actions. For where the stage should always represent but one place, and the uttermost time presupposed in it should be, both by Aristotle's precept gand common reason, but one day, there is both many days and many places inartificially imagined." Such matters were presumably discussed and even observed in and around the academic drama of Oxford and Cambridge. English theatrical practice, indeed, was far different--"But if it be so in _Gorboduc_, how much more in all the rest, where you shall have Asia of the one side, and Afric of the other, and so many under-kingdoms that the player, when he comes in, much ever begin with telling where he is, or else the tale will not be conceived?" This sounds a lot like _Tamburlane_, though Sidney's _Defense_ is usually thought to have been written before Marlowe's epics took the stage. Shakespeare, of course, observes the unities pretty closely in _Err_, the play most closely based on classical models, and in _Tem_, though both take advantage of the generalized Elizabethan stage to blur distinctions of place; it's worth thinking about the ways in which the formal constraints operate to enhance the probability of improbability and the urgency of time, themes in both plays. Otherwise, he and his contemporaries--even Jonson, the most classical of them--seem disposed to treat the strict unities as just one among many structural options. Neo-classically, Dave Evett (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 27 Nov 1996 14:46:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Italian Unities In response to the question about the so-called Unities, I can add that Machiavelli -- no mean playwright himself -- did some wonderful lampooning of this concept in his 'Mandragola', in the 1500's. The wickedest take he has on it comes when the protagonist finally bags his lady for a tryst, and in order to excuse the passage of an entire night before the next scene resumes, ol' Mach has a guy come out and say that the Unities are still preserved, since nobody will be getting much sleep under the circumstances (least of all the hero). I'm sure there are other satires of this concept, but this has to be my favorite. Andy White Urbana, IL ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:15:51 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0898 Re: New Globe Schedule Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0898. Sunday, 1 December 1996. (1) From: Patricia Cooke Date: Thursday, 28 Nov 1996 09:43:16 +1200 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0894 Q: New Globe Schedule (2) From: Andrew J. Gurr Date: Thursday, 28 Nov 1996 12:39:01 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0894 Q: New Globe Schedule (3) From: Carol Light Date: Friday, 29 Nov 1996 12:23:01 -0500 Subj: Re: New Globe - Performances and Schedule (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia Cooke Date: Thursday, 28 Nov 1996 09:43:16 +1200 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0894 Q: New Globe Schedule >Can anyone advise me on whether firm dates have been established for the first >season at the new Globe? I did some quick browsing on the Web site and >couldn't find the information. As far as we know down here, the Globe has a Festival of Firsts starting on 8 June 1997 and lasting until 23 June. These will be big occasion for the final official Opening, Royals etc. Special Events, a Ball, and two productions, known so far as Red Play and White Play. Most are for specially invited guests and VIPs and people who have contributed to the project. No more news of further seasons, repertory or otherwise, but these will follow hard upon the Opening - we hope! Their e-mail address is 100741.1611@compuserve.com Good luck. Pat Patricia Cooke, Secretary & Editor Shakespeare Globe Centre New Zealand Inc 97 Elizabeth Street Wellington 6001 New Zealand PH/FAX 64 4 3856743 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew J. Gurr Date: Thursday, 28 Nov 1996 12:39:01 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0894 Q: New Globe Schedule The Southwark Globe will be opening on 27 May 1997, with initially two plays, and later two more run in repertory. The season will end late September. The U. of Reading web page will be publishing the full performance schedule (and booking details) shortly.... though the actual plays won't be announced till the end of December. Andy Gurr. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carol Light Date: Friday, 29 Nov 1996 12:23:01 -0500 Subject: Re: New Globe - Performances and Schedule Barrett Fisher asked a question to which I do not know the answer, but, as an attorney, that just doesn't stop me. When I was in London this past summer, I became a Friend of the Shakepeare's Globe, thus receiving their various quarterly mailings. No word yet about schedule, but the fall edition said that they hoped to have the stage re-built by March of 1997, since the one they were using this summer for their Prologue Season was a temporary. The Prologue Season had only one production, and I don't recall anything being said about a permanent company or rotating productions quite yet. As it happened, I was there during the opening week and wasn't able to get tickets. Did anyone on this list see the production? The space was very exciting -- much more intimate than one would be led to expect -- with no one really being further than about 50 yards from the stage (due to the steep stacked stadium seating) . This Globe has no darkened space and lighted stage -- productions take place in natural daylight and the space is floodlit at night, meaning actors and audience can see each other at all times. Apparently, the London audiences took to participatory Shakespeare with great relish, cheering, booing, trying to get the actors to engage with spectators. One of the guides even speculated that the current London dandies would once again come to the theatre to be seen, since the boxes adjacent to the stage were as visible to all as the play. It will, I think, open up new vistas for actors and audience alike. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:18:54 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0899 Q: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0899. Sunday, 1 December 1996. From: John King Date: Wednesday, 27 Nov 1996 08:41:29 -0600 Subject: 12th Night Amidst all the clamor about the Luhrmann "Romeo & Juliet," I have heard nothing about Trevor Nunn's new film of "Twelfth Night." Personally I thought it was not only a hundred times better as Shakespeare but also at least ten times better as a film. But other than expressing my belief that Ben Kingsley is a god, I will withhold further comment at this point. I am just interested in hearing what other people think about the film. John King Platypus Theatre Troupe Arizona ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:27:53 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0900 Hamlet, Translated; Hymen; Macbeth and Witchcraft Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0900. Sunday, 1 December 1996. (1) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 27 Nov 1996 13:42:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: Hamlet, Translated (2) From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 28 Nov 1996 02:27:07 +0200 Subj: Hymen (3) From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 28 Nov 1996 02:51:07 +0200 Subj: Macbeth and Witchcraft (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 27 Nov 1996 13:42:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Hamlet, Translated Thanks for the correction Mr. Shepherd -- I must admit that the reason I rendered it that way was to preserve the sound patterns. Often the exact sense was sacrificed in order to keep the patterns going. Humbled, Andy White Urbana, IL (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 28 Nov 1996 02:27:07 +0200 Subject: Hymen I just returned from a week's absence from SHAKSPER to read the amusing comments on Hymen. Since I sort of started this by mentioning the Hymen in the 1996 RSC AYL in a list of actresses playing male roles, I might perhaps finish the discussion by pointing out that the full figured woman with the imposing white head of hair was not a "little old lady" (from Dubuque or elsewhere); indeed she was so imposing that the story went round among wits in the lobby afterward that this was Barbara Bush who was making a cameo appearance. jwv (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 28 Nov 1996 02:51:07 +0200 Subject: Macbeth and Witchcraft The discussion of James's changing attitude toward witchcraft and how it may or may not appear in Mac. is very interesting. The likelihood that Shakespeare intended to allude to James in the play is enhanced by consideration of Othello, who is condemned by Brabantio in Act I as having practiced witchcraft on his daughter, Desdemona, and by Lr. in which various bits of witchcraft are alluded to. James came to the throne in 1603; Oth. is 1604, Lr. 1605, Mac. 1606. Of course Sh. was interested in witches in Err. long before anyone thought of James, but there the business comes from Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians and the Acts of The Apostles, in which the occult religion of Diana of the Ephesians is condemned as diabolical. As late as 1611 Shakespeare has Leontes call the importunate Paulina "A mankind witch" (WT 2.3). JWV ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 09:58:00 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0901 ACTER Spring 1997 Tour Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0901. Tuesday, 3 December 1996. From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Saturday, 30 Nov 1996 16:20:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: ACTER Spring 1997 Tour ACTER's Spring 1997 Tour of Actors from the London Stage will perform *Romeo and Juliet* (completely different production from the F95 version) at the following campuses: Feb. 3-9, Illinois Wesleyan University, Bloomington, IL; Feb. 10-16, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL; Feb. 17-23, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI; Feb. 24-March 2, Allegheny College, Meadville, PA and Slippery Rock University, Slippery Rock, PA; March 3-9 Santa Monica College, Santa Monica, CA; March 10-16, Berea College, Berea, KY; March 17-23, University of the Ozarks, Clarksville, AR; March 24-30 New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM; March 31-April 6, LaSalle University, Philadelphia, PA. The 1997-98 season of *Measure for Measure* and *Midsummer Night's Dream* is almost booked; to see schedule or for more info on ACTER, visit our website at http://www.unc.edu/depts/acter/ or call Cynthia Dessen, Manager, 919-967-4265. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:09:18 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0902 Re: Politics; Rom. Film; Unities Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0902. Tuesday, 3 December 1996. (1) From: John Drakakis Date: Sunday, 1 Dec 1996 17:05:29 -0000 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0895 Re: Politics: Marxists, Elitism (2) From: Amy Ulen Date: Sunday, 01 Dec 1996 15:45:08 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0896 Re: New *Romeo and Juliet* Film (3) From: Ed Pixley Date: Monday, 02 Dec 1996 14:53:47 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0890 Re: Shakespeare and the Unities (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Sunday, 1 Dec 1996 17:05:29 -0000 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0895 Re: Politics: Marxists, Elitism Far be it from me to remind William Proctor Williams that Shakespearean "texts" have a particular kind of cultural capital as "Literature", hence our discussion of them as texts. I suppose that treating them as "scripts" for performance will help us get back to their "original" meaning, will it? Now there's an interesting critical posture for you, and one that doesn't have much going for it intellectually. Best wishes John Drakakis (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy Ulen Date: Sunday, 01 Dec 1996 15:45:08 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0896 Re: New *Romeo and Juliet* Film >Bruce Fenton writes: > >Someone said that movies are no substitute for the text in teaching the plays. >Who on earth came up with the idea that text should be used at all in teaching? >Certainly the author did not intend for them to be read- but performed. > >In my opinion the best way to learn the plays is by seeing them performed- >ideally on the stage and if not then in a movie theater- if that is unavailable >then by reading them aloud and finally, as a last resort, by simply reading the >texts. Bruce, I agree that the plays should not simply be read because, after all, they are scripts for performance. When I made the comment about not using film to teach a play, I may have left out that I believe that the students should perform the text themselves! I personally don't see much of a difference between a child passively sitting in her desk watching a film or passively sitting in her desk reading a play. She isn't going to experience the beauty of the language or the emotion behind the text until she gets up on her feet and puts the words in her mouth! I taught at an alternative school for four years, and my students never got much out of watching a video, but they made amazing discoveries about the text when they performed it themselves. Amy Ulen (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pixley Date: Monday, 02 Dec 1996 14:53:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0890 Re: Shakespeare and the Unities > From: Rick Jones > Re Keith Ghormley's question about the "classical unities." There's no such > thing: the concept of unities of time, place and action was a neo-Classical > (mostly Italian, partially French) invention. Aristotle speaks of what can be > called a unity of action, but mentions time only in passing, and place not at > all. The neo-Classicists, on the other hand, emphasized time and place even > more than action (cf. the furor over Corneille's _Le Cid_). > > Certainly Shakespeare was not alone among English playwrights in ignoring > unities: witness _Gorboduc_ or _Cambyses_ or _Doctor Faustus_ or _Bartholomew > Fair_. Sidney's Defense of Poesie seems, at least, to revel in the difference > between England and Everywhere Else. Just to add to Rick's useful points, at the time Shakespeare was writing, Lope de Vega in Spain and Alexandre Hardi in France felt equally free to leap across time and space when their plots called for it. Mahelot's designs for Hardi's plays show simultaneous staging at the Hotel de Bourgogne that rival the mansion staging of the Vallencienes Passion Play. The Pleiade had tried to inspire more controlled style in France, but not until the 1630s are the unities fully installed by the elitist taste of preciosite and by edict of the academy. Lope is a great one for multiple plots as well. Ed Pixley ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:11:56 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0903 Re: Rhetorical Resources Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0903. Tuesday, 3 December 1996. From: Christine Jacobson Date: Sunday, 1 Dec 1996 17:00:30 -0700 Subject: Nov 11 1996, Eric Armstrong, Rhetorical Resources In the process of doing my paper on the aspect of the Idiolect in two of Shakespear's plays, or the angle of the idiolect, rather, (which is tricky, as I myself am of the idiolet classification for taking this on perhaps) I have come across reading that might be of interest to you Eric, in the text of a book by S.S. Hussey. This book, "The literary language of Shakespeare" Longman House, Publishers, Burnt Mill, UK, 1925, discusses to some extent, the language of rhetoric as is "meant the art of persuasion" as Shakes- pear used it and discusses rhetoric also from its sources in Roman literature, namely, the works of Cicero. I can't find, however, the proper spelling or use of that particular word you were looking for. I hope this will be of interest to you. Christine Jacobson ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:18:33 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0904 Re: Shakespeare and Popular Culture Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0904. Tuesday, 3 December 1996. (1) From: Christine Jacobson Date: Sunday, 1 Dec 1996 17:12:34 -0700 Subj: Shakespeare & Popular Culture, Suba Subbarro, Nov 14 (2) From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Sunday, 1 Dec 1996 23:33:37 -0500 Subj: King Lear Digested (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Jacobson Date: Sunday, 1 Dec 1996 17:12:34 -0700 Subject: Shakespeare & Popular Culture, Suba Subbarro, Nov 14 I noticed Suba's request for input on sources of Shakespear's influence in our culture. I can't think of anything off hand, as regards to advertising, However, in a Children's Literature course at this college, I came across a reference to Shakespeare in the well know book, "Where The Wild Things Are" by Maurice Sendak. In a critique of some of his works, authors, Schwartz and Schwarts' "The Picture Book Comes of Age", American Library Association, 1991, point out that Sendak puts his protagonist, Max, in a Henry V pose in the scene at the door of his tent, with the monster at his side. Any of your college students could appreciate this, as I'm sure they've all heard of or read Maurice Sendak's "Where The Wild Things Are", (unless, of course, they are new americans or overseas student, in which case they might wonder about us North Americans). (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Sunday, 1 Dec 1996 23:33:37 -0500 Subject: King Lear Digested There is a wonderful, funny summary of King Lear that takes about a minute in Bill Irwin's THE REGARD OF FLIGHT, an unclassifiable dance-pantomime-clown piece. It occurs about 5 minutes from the end. REGARD OF FLIGHT was originally presented as part of Great Performances on PBS; it's available in many libraries as a videotape in The MacArthur Library. Martin Jukovsky Cambridge, Mass. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:29:38 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0907 Re: The Folger Shakespeare Library Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0907. Tuesday, 3 December 1996. (1) From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Monday, 02 Dec 96 09:13:00 PST Subj: FW: SHK 7.0881 Q: Huntington Library (2) From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Monday, 02 Dec 96 09:15:00 PST Subj: FW: SHK 7.0880 Re: Folger Open House (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Monday, 02 Dec 96 09:13:00 PST Subject: FW: SHK 7.0881 Q: Huntington Library I'm replying to Michelle via the Listserv as other folks out there may be interested in the response. The Folger is even now in process of bringing up our new online catalogue. Eventually, this will be accessible via telnet, but not for some months yet. Even so, it will NOT include the majority of rare books or any of the manuscripts in the collections, so researchers will still have to consult the multi-volume Folger Catalogs of Printed Books and Manuscripts. In England these are available at a number of institutions including: Birmingham Public Library, U of Birmingham, Trinity College and Univer. Library at Cambridge, U of Durham, U of Hall, U of Leeds, U of Liverpool, British Library, U of London, U of Manchester, Bodleian Library, Blackwells at Oxford, U of Southampton, and Shakesp. Centre Library in Stratford. Not all places have both book and MS catalogs, but many do. Hope this is useful information for all. Georgianna Ziegler Folger Reference Librarian (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Monday, 02 Dec 96 09:15:00 PST Subject: FW: SHK 7.0880 Re: Folger Open House Again, I'm replying to Pat Dunlay and Alan Young via the List as the replies may interest other folks. Pat asked about performances at the Folger or elsewhere at MLA time. First for Pat: Washington's highly professional Shakespeare Theater is mounting a performance of Antony and Cleopatra. The times during MLA are as follows: Dec. 26 at 2 and 8; Dec.27 at 8; Dec.28 at 2 and 8; Dec.29 at 2 and 7:30; Dec.30 no show; Dec.31 at 7:30; Jan.1 at 7:30 (Box office 202-393-2700). In addition, there are a number of Shakespeare films playing here now, and given the popularity of R&J, I expect it will be on then as well. Hamlet opens just before Christmas. There are no performances at the Folger during that time, but for anyone staying on in DC, the Folger Consort will be staging Hildegard von Bingen's Ordo Virtutum at the National Cathedral on January 10 and 11. Now for Alan's query. There is a very fine catalogue of the Hollar exhibit, available from the Folger Museum Shop for $26.95. Phone: 202-675-0308. Hope to see many of you at the "Tea." Georgianna ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:22:01 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0905 Re: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0905. Tuesday, 3 December 1996. From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 2 Dec 1996 07:38:19 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0899 Q: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* Dear John-- I too would like to hear what other people thought of 12th Night...of the three recent Shakespeare film offings (R &J and the Pacino movie), I found it by far the best. Sure, they did some of the movie changeroo stuff (adding a dramatic storm scene at the beginning--but I really didn't mind that) and cutting out certain famous lines ("it is too hard a knot for me to untie" etc), and speeches, but I was impressed with more than just Kingsley--Helena Bonham Carter is great as well, and more...and I was impressed by the montage juxtapositions of Malvolio in prison with Olivia and Sebastion all being puzzled in wonderment (Illyria delium)--it highlighted thematically the word "imagination" and actually used movie technology to SUPPORT the text...even as it deviated from it. Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:25:09 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0906 Q: Teaching: Video, Stage Performance, and Reading Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0906. Tuesday, 3 December 1996. From: Bob Dennis Date: Monday, 02 Dec 96 08:55:32 -0500 Subject: Re: Teaching: Video, Stage Performance, and Reading A general question, or two: Over the holiday I talked with my twin nephews who are each taking Shakespeare courses this semester (different courses, same university). One is reading a selection of the plays from Bevington's edition, apparently with a lot of sniping and corrections offered by the professor in class. The other, however, shocked me with the comment that they were only watching videos of the plays. They do not use the printed texts. I wonder what the different experiences will bring each of them. And I wondered just what percentage of students experienced the different teaching options. Has anyone compiled (actually taken data!) on the distribution of methods for teaching Shakespeare, i.e., how many professors teach a certain method and how many students are exposed to a given method? How much teaching is done using the texts only; texts mixed with a selection of video and/or live performance; text mixed with student performances; video only; etc.? If no one has looked into this, I would be interested and willing to undertake such a study. But I do not feel any need to reinvent the wheel. I would also like to mention another shocker to me. The nephew taking the video-Shakespeare talked about his course in the American novel. Among other works they are "reading" Moby Dick, The Sun Also Rises, and Absalom, Absalom. I put the "reading" in quotes because when I was enthusiastic about the Faulkner and mentioned the beginning word, Ikkemotube, and the subsequent stream of consciousness derivation of the Sutphen clan, my nephew said apologetically that he had not read that part: they were told to begin at Chapter 7 because the beginning parts were too difficult. Pardon my naivete, but I thought that was why the professor was there. Any comments??? I ask only in relation to teaching the "difficult" stuff, since such occurs in Shakespeare as well as the American Novel. I do not mean to pull us away from Shakespeare. Humbly curious, Bob Dennis rdennis@nesdis.noaa.gov ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:32:07 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0908 Derolez Master Class in Codicology Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0908. Tuesday, 3 December 1996. From: Daniel Traister Date: Monday, 2 Dec 1996 10:32:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Derolez Master Class in Codicology INTERESTED PEOPLE SHOULD CONTACT THE PERSON WHOSE ADDRESS IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE, WITHOUT REPLYING EITHER TO THE LIST OR TO THE SENDER! * * * * * Rare Book School (RBS) and the Dept of Rare Books & Special Collections, Princeton University Library, are pleased to announce a five-day Master Class in Western Codicology, to be taught by Professor Albert Derolez (Free Universities of Brussels) from 20-24 January 1997. The course description of this non-credit course is as follows: MASTER CLASS IN WESTERN CODICOLOGY. Advanced study of the physical features of medieval manuscripts: (1) an analysis of the contents of individual codices; and (2) establishing criteria for dating and localizing manuscripts. The course will entirely be based on the inspection of manuscripts. Students will perform their own codicological investigations and transcriptions of actual codices. A good basic knowledge of paleography and Latin is necessary, and some experience with manuscripts a recommendation. Tuition: $600. The class will be limited to 10 students. The course will begin informally with a reception and buffet supper on Sunday, 19 January, and end Friday, 24 January, at lunchtime, so that participants may if they wish attend the annual meeting of the Bibliographical Society of America taking place in New York City that afternoon. Moderately priced hotel housing in Princeton will be available for those who need it, as well as information about travel and other matters, according to the usual RBS customs. Those interested in applying for admission to this course should write or fax or email or telephone for an application form from: Rare Book School 114 Alderman Library University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22903 Telephone 804/924-8851 Fax 804/924-8824 Email biblio@virginia.edu I would be grateful if ExLibris subscribers reading this message would forward it to other bulletin boards to which they subscribe where there might be interest in the course. Terry Belanger : University Professor : University of Virginia Book Arts Press : 114 Alderman Library : Charlottesville, VA 22903 Tel: 804/924-8851 FAX: 804/924-8824 email: belanger@virginia.edu URL: http://poe.acc.virginia.edu/~oldbooks/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:21:33 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0909 Re: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0909. Wednesday, 4 December 1996. (1) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Tuesday, 3 Dec 1996 10:35:12 -0500 Subj: Trevor Nunn Twelfth Night (2) From: Jung Jimmy Date: Tuesday, 03 Dec 1996 11:09am Subj: RE: SHK 7.0899 Q: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* (3) From: Corrie Zoll Date: Tuesday, 3 Dec 1996 13:11:13 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0905 Re: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* (4) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Tuesday, 3 Dec 1996 14:46:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: Nunn's Night (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Tuesday, 3 Dec 1996 10:35:12 -0500 Subject: Trevor Nunn Twelfth Night I did love the settings, both indoors and out--the autumnal colors and harvest vignettes, full of lushness and also a faint hint of coming decay. The cliifside ocean was a wonderful recurring image to remind us of the first scene. I found the Duke's soldiers utterly chilling. The whole was realistic, I thought, beginning with the first scene, which explains what these two orphans are doing on board a ship anyway. Film is the realistic medium, after all, and unless a director does something like what Olivier did in *H5* or for that matter what Luhrman does in *Rom.* it's probably a good idea to give in to that surface realism. Duke Orsino's broken arm was another good touch--explaining perhaps his sending of emissaries to Olivia. Another was the fencing lessons that all the Duke's men engage in--with Cesario pushing off the fencing master's grip on her chest (that, and the sigh of relief when she unbinds the wrapping around her bosom). I also found the twins, though played by female and male, believable, even in closeup. And I am so glad that Sebastian and Cesario-Viola DO embrace, even though she tells him not to embrace her. Some dark colorations are absent such as the information Sh. throws in at the end that the Captain has been imprisoned at Malvolio's suit. Other dark elements were, of course, fully present--including Antonio slipping away, Toby's terrible rejection of Sir Andrew (not completely justified, as I see it, in the folio with its ambiguous punctuation)#, Malvolio's departure, and Feste's. Ben Kingsley brought out the quirkiness of the role, and for once Fabian was enough different from Feste to warrant his introduction. I loved it. I think it is a great gift to us as Shakespeare teachers. I have felt the lack of a good TN on film; now we'll have it. NO doubt it will be on video ere long. Its rejection by various film critics is inexplicable, to me. # a note on Toby's line: In the folio it is Will you helpe an Asse-head, and a cox-combe, & a knaue, a thin fac'd knaue, a gull? in response to Sir Andrew's Ile helpe you sir Toby, because we'll be drest to-gether. Even with the modern punctuation they saw in their various modern editions, my students did not want to see Toby's line as applying to Sir Andrew. They thought that Toby was talking about himself: all his plots have turned on him. I ask them what they do, then, with "thin-fac'd" but they shrug that off; that's simply an insult, not to be taken literally. Bernice W. Kliman (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jung Jimmy Date: Tuesday, 03 Dec 1996 11:09am Subject: RE: SHK 7.0899 Q: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* Like John King, I was also wondering how we lost track of 12th Night, "amidst all the clamor about the Luhrmann Romeo & Juliet." Unlike John I can't say I thought it was a hundred times better. Where R&J leapt about with those MTV-style splices that have been discussed so often, 12th night seemed to drag with one scene being stretched into three of four locations. I dozed during Malevolio's discovery of the letter (but in all fairness, I just pulled much of an all-nighter) With the exception of Viola, I had no sympathy for the characters, which was not the case with R&J, which is a surprise, because I am a fan of both Kingsley and Bonham Carter. This one's too fast; this one's too slow; does that mean Hamlet's gonna be "just right"? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Corrie Zoll Date: Tuesday, 3 Dec 1996 13:11:13 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0905 Re: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* Walking up to the Uptown Theater in Minneapolis, the Marquee described Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* as "Gender-Bending Madcap Comedy". I found it to be neither, but this is more a criticism of the moviehouse than of the film. Like Chris Stroffolino, I did not mind the addition of the storm scene at the beginning of the film. In fact, since I was expecting gender-bending madcap comedy, I loved the layers of sexuality heaped upon the twins: They are performing on board the boat, both dressed as Arabian princesses. They sing, and one of their voices suddenly drops an octave. Their audience laughs. Viola removes Sebastian's veil, revealing his moustache. Sebastian removes Viola's veil, revealing that she, too, is wearing a moustache. More laughter. Sebastian peels away Viola's moustache. Viola reaches out as if she's going to peel away Sebastian's moustache when there is a jolt and the captain (looking much like Ned Beatty as Cap'n Andy in the current touring production of *Showboat*) rushes to 'man' the lifeboats. This introduction led me to expect more exploration of the layered gender roles of these two characters. Alas, there was none that I could see. A deeper awareness on the part of Olivia that she had fallen in love with a woman would have been nice, but this production even underplays the homosexual subtext in the relationship between Sebastian and Antonio. We do see Orsino and Cesario lean in for a kiss, but they do not, and in any case Feste is watching. As we later learn, Feste knows about Viola's disguise all along, and as our chaperone might have kept us from viewing any actual homoerotic contact. As with other productions of *Twelfth Night*, the cruelty displayed toward Malvolio by Toby, Mariah, Andrew, and Fabian seems too much. Do you suppose an Elizabethan audience would have seen Malvolio as a stock character and would have better understood why he deserved his comeuppance than an audience expecting each character to exist exclusively within the givin production? ps- Anyone in the Minneapolis area interested in attending a monthly Elizabethan drama reading group, please contact me at aczoll@aol.com. -Corrie Zoll (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Tuesday, 3 Dec 1996 14:46:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Nunn's Night Having finally seen it myself, I have to applaud Nunn's efforts with Twelfth Night. I have a lot of reservations, however, since he has explicitly left out any and all material which would disagree with his dark vision of the play. Take Richard Grant's Aguecheek, for instance. My impression when I played the role was that he was egotistical, and well deserving of ridicule. The same goes for Malvolio. When Nunn decided to make these two characters thinking, feeling human beings he went well beyond the Bard's intentions, and made Sir Toby into a mere psychopath, a prototype of Bill Sykes. Not that the film doesn't hold together, and certainly the reunion at the end of the film brought tears to my eyes, it was exquisite. But all the sensitivity he brought to roles who were unfeeling, egotistical dolts left me a bit cold. Yes, Ben Kingsley is very god, and isn't it great to hear him sing? It's also nice that the composer did such a fine job re-setting the music. The tunes they came up with for the Joan Plowright/Alec Guiness/Ralph Richardson Twelfth Night were so saccherine it almost made me ill. Andy White Urbana, IL ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:26:30 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0910 Re: Politics: Marxists, Elitism, and Texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0910. Wednesday, 4 December 1996. (1) From: Jane A Thompson Date: Tuesday, 3 Dec 1996 10:24:58 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0895 Re: Politics: Marxists, Elitism (2) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Tuesday, 3 Dec 1996 15:24:47 -0500 (EST) Subj: Marxism, Elitism (3) From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 3 Dec 1996 15:34:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0902 Re: Politics (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jane A Thompson Date: Tuesday, 3 Dec 1996 10:24:58 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0895 Re: Politics: Marxists, Elitism It's the "little cattle-town idyll" kind of non-argument, of course, whch gets Marxists and other university and U.S.-coastal types despised to begin with. Can we not talk about each other's postings without resorting to casual put-downs? --Jane (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Tuesday, 3 Dec 1996 15:24:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Marxism, Elitism To correct the many bad impressions I have created here, let me stress that when I decided to produce Hamlet in Sidney, it was because I regard it as a good play. I had hopes of sharing my joy in Shakespeare, and certainly didn't entertain any ridiculous notions of cultural superiority. What's interesting to me is that the responses I have received off-line seem to indicate a cultural divide, between the UK and the USA. The UK comments were almost universally cynical, and the USA comments were encouraging -- moreover, the Yanks didn't suspect my motives for putting on the play in the first place. Perhaps a useful way out of the debate I've helped set off would be for us to examine the differences we have on either side of the puddle. Clearly, Americans view Marxism with distrust, seeing it to be an elitist philosophy (steeped in Platonism, if I do say so myself). Our fellows in the UK, however, have come to regard it as a legitimate (if not the only legitimate) lense through which to view our times. My chief concern is that when we define the arts as elitist, we are in fact practicing a sort of elitism, pretending to know the minds of total strangers whose only offense is that they enjoy performing and directing Shakespeare. My other concern is that Marxism/Leninism, and its Chinese incarnation as well, have succeeded in killing the arts and have almost succeeded in destroying centuries of cultural heritage. That is why I bristle at the notion that I am an elitist -- it implies that if our Marxist brethren had it their way, I'd be off to Siberia. At least I'd be in good company, Meyerhold et al considered. Besides, here in America it's the capitalists who hate the arts and call them elitist. We have to put up with a lot of bigoted rhetoric from our opinion writers and politicians, who say that all Yanks should just pay for their Cable TV channels, buy the latest trash from Warner Brothers or Disney, or shut up and stay at home. When we try to arrange for free concerts, free theatre, we are called elitist in spite of the fact that we're trying to share our passion for the arts and do it with all of the people in mind. Why is it that the human spirit is always suspect? Why is it that we are only regarded as material beings, with solely material motivations? Is it possible that Marxism and Capitalism converge on the notion that the typical human being is spiritless, and only good as a worker or consumer? Andy White Urbana, IL (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 3 Dec 1996 15:34:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0902 Re: Politics Trust John Drakakis, or any of the ideologues, to leap to the conclusion that to speak of the texts as "scripts" implies some belief in a recoverable "original" or pure meaning, or more, a privileging of that original. It does not. The texts have a certain undeniable cultural capital as literature, it is true, and they also have a certain undeniable aesthetic power. Those two things about the texts are quite separate. But a knee-jerk ideological decision to always and everywhere privilege one of those "meanings" is one way of responding to Shakespeare's complexity. Paul Hawkins ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:42:02 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0911 Re: Teaching; The Unities; Pennington & Hamlet Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0911. Wednesday, 4 December 1996. (1) From: James Schaefer Date: Tuesday, 03 Dec 1996 11:37:21 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Teaching: Video, Stage Performance, and Reading (2) From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Tuesday, 3 Dec 1996 12:32:56 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0888 Q: Shakespeare and the Unities (3) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 3 Dec 96 12:42:13 CST Subj: Pennington & Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Tuesday, 03 Dec 1996 11:37:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Teaching: Video, Stage Performance, and Reading To Bob Dennis: Not reading the "difficult stuff" in Faulkner doesn't leave a whole lot left to read. I remember reading -- no, trying to read -- _Light in August_ as a freshman, and getting only half-way through it by class time. That's OK, I thought, I'll still have Wednesday's class. Hah! Old Bernie Morrissey steamrolled right through the book, haranguing us all the way for not READING IT CAREFULLY, and then assigned _The Glass Menagerie_ for the next class session. My wife, a professor of biology at another institution, has a constant problem with students who come to her classes thinking they can get an "A" if they "sort of know" the material. She has a very humanist heart, but she is driven to distraction by her colleagues in some other departments who do not seem to challenge their students' critical skills regarding the objects of study in their field. A "plot summary" of the carbon cycle won't get you very far in BIOL 100; it shouldn't count in ENGL 100 (or 3XX!) either. Curmudgeonly, with a cold, Jim Schaefer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Tuesday, 3 Dec 1996 12:32:56 -0500 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0888 Q: Shakespeare and the Unities Was Shakespeare doing anything unusual? Yes and no, though the answer to this might lead you off in unexpected directions I think you might find the book, "Shakespeare's Universe of Discourse: Language Games in the Comedies", a useful source although there is another work I read, a work which examined, among the prologues, Shakespeare's Pericles, which was more useful on this subject. If someone else can think of it work, which I detail a bit more below, let me know. Any of my ideas come from this latter work which I can't recall. The appeal of the unites (perhaps even in its own day only a theoretical ideal) was in its presumed ability to create the illusion of reality. The need to create this illusion, however, was not always necessary. Even up to Shakespeare's day, there were those in the audience who confused the play with reality. Come to think of it, it still happens to this day. I'm thinking of a little old lady at an airport who, so Larry Hagman [sic?] claims, attacked him with her purse after identifying him as J.R. What an evil man. By the time Shakespeare was writing his plays, he was dealing with a more sophisticated and perhaps jaded audience. While he, like most dramatists, apparently didn't give much credence to the idea of the unities, he nevertheless seemed more sensitive to its ideal. In the prologue you sampled from H5: [For 'tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings, / Carry them here and there; jumping o'er times, / Turning the accomplishment of many years / Into an hour-glass.] Shakespeare was indeed, according to my memory of the criticism, doing something unusual. He was at once acknowledging the play's illusion while inviting the audience to suspend that knowledge of the play's illusion. He admits not only to the poverty of his stage effects but also invites the audience to suspend their notion of time, which argues that Shakespeare, perhaps because of criticism from Jonson, was aware of the unities and sensitive to criticism related to it. If memory serves, this is also the case with the prologue of Pericles, which is an argument for its attribution to Shakespeare. That is, Shakespeare was the first dramatist to deliberately strive for a sort of meta-reality. So, Shakespeare was at once part of the established trend and an innovator. This also raises a host of issues, the meta-dramatic and meta-linguistic (meta-linguistic reflections) properties of Shakespeare's plays for example - his, to quote Elam, "expository and 'referential' construction of the universe". All techniques which aspire to the same illusory reality of the unities. So, I wouldn't say exactly, as you do, that "Shakespeare paid little heed to the classical unities (time, place, and action)", rather, he acknowledged their importance by his own acknowledgment of their omission. Patrick (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 3 Dec 96 12:42:13 CST Subject: Pennington & Hamlet I remember a discussion earlier this year about a book by Michael Pennington on _Hamlet_. I just found a copy in our University book store: the title is _Hamlet: A User's Guide_ and it was published in the U.S. in August 1996 by Limelight Editions, 118 E 30 St, NY NY 10016. Retail price is $16.95. Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:45:48 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0912 Q: Triple Plotting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0912. Wednesday, 4 December 1996. From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Tuesdy, 3 Dec 1996 12:48:39 -0500 Subject: Triple Plotting? Time Slover won Writer's Digest's 1996 Writing Competition with "March Tale", a play about Shakespeare. The following is from the Nov. issue of Writer's Digest: **** .....Slover's play is a Shakespearean comedy that's also about William Shakespeare, Queen Elizabeth, and her friends and companions. "I've had an interest in Shakespeare for years," Slover said. "And if I knew there was a play about Shakespeare that had Queen Elizabeth in it, I'd want to see it," What's more, Slover "thought it would be interesting" to write his play in the classic Shakespearean form, triple-plotting and all. The structure appealed to stage-play judge James D. Wilson, who commented on the play's juxtaposition of modern American culture with a period mentality.... **** This is the first time I've heard the expression "triple-plotting" used in the same breath as "classic Shakespearean form". Can someone tell me what WD means by "triple-plotting" and what *is* the "classic Shakespearean form"? I've often heard the latter term but its meaning has been smudged by constant use, a bit like "fascism". I wouldn't mind a brief explication to once again clear the attic. Also, is anyone familiar with Slover's play? Patrick ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:47:52 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0913 Ohio Shakespeare Conference Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0913. Wednesday, 4 December 1996. From: Luke A Wilson Date: Tuesday, 3 Dec 1996 16:48:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ohio Shakespeare Conference SUBMIT! There is STILL TIME TO SUBMIT a paper proposal for the Ohio Shakespeare Conference, Ohio State University, Columbus OH, May 16-18, 1997. The theme this year is "Textual Practice and Theatrical Labor" -- under which rubric all sorts of things fit. For details, see the Call below. There will be four keynote addresses: by Stephen Orgel, Leah Marcus, Jeff Masten and Douglas Bruster. I should add that in conjunction with the conference the OSU Theater Department will be putting on a performance of Merry Wives, and that there will be an exhibit at the OSU library of rare materials from the Stanley Kahrl Collection of early modern dramatic texts (on display at the same time will be a collection of medieval Russian mss recently unearthed in the library of the Wexner Center for the Arts in Columbus. This year the conference will take place in part at the Hyatt Regency in downtown Columbus, and in part at the Wexner Center on campus. Surely, this is an event not to me missed! CALL FOR PAPERS TEXTUAL PRACTICE AND THEATRICAL LABOR: SHAKESPEARE AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES 1997 Ohio Shakespeare Conference Department of English Ohio State University Columbus OH May 16-18, 1997 Featured Speakers: Stephen Orgel (Stanford University) Leah Marcus (University of Texas, Austin) Jeff Masten (Harvard University) Douglas Bruster (University of Texas, San Antonio) The 1997 Ohio Shakespeare Conference invites paper and session proposals on any aspect of the business of the theater in Shakespeare's lifetime, from reexaminations of textual and editing problems, to the material and economic conditions within which dramatic scripts, texts and performances were produced and consumed in the many transactions that took place between consumers, players, patrons, printing houses, playhouses, and playwrights. The conference seeks new research on, and new conceptualizations of, some of the oldest critical and historical questions concerning early modern theater: What economic, ideological, and phenomenological structures shaped and were shaped by the performance of dramatic and theatrical work? How do such structures affect textual and theatrical production and reproduction? What bearing do such concerns have on questions of topicality, influence, didacticism, patronage, or the evolution of dramatic tastes and genres? While Shakespeare will undoubtedly figure prominently, the conference aims at somewhat broader coverage. Work on Shakespeare's contemporaries in the theater, therefore, as well on Shakespeare's collaborative work, is encouraged. Suitable panel and paper topics include, but are not limited to: ** acting as labor * "playhouse interpolations" and the production of meaning * textual variants and the economics of revision * sites and scenes of dramatic composition * collaborative authorship * acting as action * text v. work * work v. labor * work and play * script as work product * the cultural work of the theater * performance as artifact * employment contracts * entrepreneurship * contractual and theatrical performances * promises * wagers * joint stock companies and corporate personality * professional competence and incompetence * expertise and training * divisions of labor in theatrical practice, and in dramatic representation * material phenomenologies of the theater * represented time and the time it takes to represent it * acting, identity and alienation * consumption (e.g., playgoing) as work * dramatic representations of economic relationships * pirates and "dramatic piracy" * acting and ownership * censorship and economics * economics and/of influence ** For more information, or to submit abstracts for 20-minute presentations, or proposals for sessions (deadline: December 20, 1996), contact: Luke Wilson or Chris Highley Department of English Ohio State University 164 W. 17th Ave Columbus OH 43210-1370 voice: 614-292-6065 fax: 614-292-7816 email: Wilson.501@osu.edu; Highley.1@osu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:17:50 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0914 Q: Jonson/Jones Feud Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0914. Thursday, 5 December 1996. From: Mike Field Date: Wednesday, 4 Dec 1996 09:34:54 -0500 Subject: Jonson/Jones Feud I am writing about the Ben Jonson / Inigo Jones feud and would like to communicate offlist with anyone who may have some thoughts about this occurrence. In particular, I am trying to better understand the enigmatic Mr. Jones who, it is said, liked to demonstrate his physical skills by jumping over chairs at social gatherings, but was a coward with a sword. Does anyone out there have a sense of Jones' personality? Is there a more appropriate list to direct these questions? Any help at all would be appreciated. Mike Field pmf@jhu.edu (410) 516-4470 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:22:35 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0915 Re: Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0915. Thursday, 5 December 1996. (1) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Wednesday, 4 Dec 1996 09:31:37 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0910 Re: Politics: Marxists, Elitism, and Texts (2) From: Belinda Johnston Date: Thursday, 5 Dec 1996 13:51:30 +1100 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0910 Re: Politics: Marxists, Elitism, and Texts (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Wednesday, 4 Dec 1996 09:31:37 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0910 Re: Politics: Marxists, Elitism, and Texts Jane A Thompson asks: >Can we not talk about each other's postings without resorting to casual >put-downs? Alas no, since gratuitous offensiveness and ad hominem attack now count as genuine intellectual engagement in many academic circles. This tendency seems to be exacerbated by the Internet medium, with its absence of a need to worry about aspects of the non-electronic context of argument which might normally inhibit the display of sheer nastiness. Of course, when you've been trained in Melbourne, you just cant help it.... Cheers, Tom (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Belinda Johnston Date: Thursday, 5 Dec 1996 13:51:30 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0910 Re: Politics: Marxists, Elitism, and Texts I see I have been accused by Jane Thompson of flippancy and non-argument. Indeed, Thompson implies that the non-arguments proferred by 'we Marxists' is the reason for the lapses into the hate speech exemplified by Walker-White's "I despise Marxists". Show me an argument for 'human spirit' and 'creativity' that doesn't resort to tired essentialisms and I'll accept the charge of 'non-argument'. Few of the Marxists I know would say the human subject is 'spiritless'- rather they would suggest that our very notions of spirit, creativity, and artistic value are variable, culturally-bound and produced out of a series of material relations. Therefore, we must be careful how we deploy those terms. It is precisely this language that I object to in Walker-White-s argument and my flippantly insulting response was intended simply to point out that the notion of a sovereign individual subject (employed in Walker-White's latest posting in his reduction of capitalism and marxism to individual 'motive') is a notion in need of interrogation, and worthy of suspicion. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:34:12 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0918 Q: Hales/Petit Case Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0918. Thursday, 5 December 1996. From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Wednesday, 4 Dec 1996 22:38:19 -0500 Subject: Hales/Petit Case A friend who is not on e-mail knows he saw among the many journals he receives a long essay about the Hales/Petit case and its relation to the gravediggers' discussion of Ophelia's suicide. Now he cannot locate it. If anyone saw that essay and knows where to locate it, would they write to me privately? Many thanks, Bernice ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:27:55 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0916 Re: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0916. Thursday, 5 December 1996. (1) From: John King Date: Wednesday, 04 Dec 1996 09:42:30 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0909 Re: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* (2) From: Laurie Osborne Date: Wednesday, 4 Dec 1996 14:04:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0909 Re: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John King Date: Wednesday, 04 Dec 1996 09:42:30 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0909 Re: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* In response to Carrie Zoll's comments about the handling of the gender issues in Trevor Nunn's "Twelfth Night" film, I have to wonder if we saw the same movie. One of the things which pleased me the most about it was, in fact, it's refusal to shy away from exploring the homosexual themes and merely treat the swapped gender roles as just another stock device. "Cesario's" relationship with Orsino was played with a defenite awareness of its sexual overtones, with Toby Stephens as Orsino doing what I felt was a fine job of conveying the confusion of his situation- a confusion which he would not, realistically, reveal to ANYONE around him, one which he would most decidedly keep to himself. The fact that they almost kiss in the "Come away death..." sequence made it, I think, abundently clear what was going on; and why, even if Feste DID know about Viola's disguise, would he have any interest in keeping us from seeing homoerotic content- it seems to me that their confusion would simply give him more cause for his dour brand of mirth. As for the homosexuality of Antonio, I think that it was once again made sufficiently clear what was going on with him. Nicholas Farrell played it in a way which left no doubt (as if there could be any, anyway) how he felt about Sebastian- and in the text, it certainly is never stated explicitly that he is gay, either. Perhaps my reaction to this aspect of the film is affected by the fact that I recently saw a college production of "As You Like IT," and not only did they NEVER even hint at any kind of sexual confusion in the relationship between Orlando/"Ganymede," but on talking to the actors who played the roles afterwards I discovered they had never even discussed or thought about that issue. But still, I felt it was handled with just the right amount of emphasis- I admired the fact that it was just enough for us to get it and recognize it's importance to the story, but not enough to hit us over the head with it. After all, it's not a play about being homosexual- at least not explicitly. As for the cruelty displayed towards Malvolio, I have always felt that this was a fundamental issue of the play. Shakespeare made his characters cruel, and Nunn simply portrays them faithfully, without trying to solve it by making Malvolio even more hateful or by trying to sugar coat it in some way, as I have seen done (it's never convincing). And indeed, I think that again the actors do such a marvelous job of subtly portraying the subtextual information that there is not only a deeper reason implied for the conspiracy (perhaps personal for each participant) against Malvolio beyond the fact that he is an insufferable, judgemental ass (reason enough for him to be the butt of any and all jokes- he reminds me of the pompous figures they used to use in Marx Bros. movies for Groucho to insult in an equally cruel manner); likewise, I think there is an awareness on the part of the practical jokesters that they go too far- again, not explicit, but there. One other thing: I felt that he did a great job of making it a FILM instead of a play; as someone else pointed out, the kind of intercutting of scenes and adding of material (and cutting of other material) that normally is the bane of Shakespeare movies works very well here, helping to underline the themes and parallels which fuel the play. In all, I felt the movie did a wonderful job of telling the story and of making it accessible without spoon-feeding its audience.It takes great courage in this age of easy information to make a film which lets the audience think for itself, and even more to take a difficult, ambiguous play like "Twelfth Night" and present it without trying to provide answers to all the questions it raises. It was meant to make its audiences think, even as they were laughing, and Mr. Nunn and his stellar cast have given at least one audience member (me) that pleasure. John King Platypus Theatre Troupe Mesa, AZ (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laurie Osborne Date: Wednesday, 4 Dec 1996 14:04:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0909 Re: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* I finally got to see the Twelfth Night this week-- at long last! I enjoyed it very much, and I really wish I had had the chance to see it twice, because I am interested in some of their choices--especially the choice to adopt Antonio's take on Illyria. In this version, Illyria is as much of a dangerous place for Viola and Sebastian as it is for Antonio--and his lines are even used to establish the danger! In addition to the interesting "invention" of the Comedy-of-Errors style arbitary war between Illyria and Messina, the addition of Viola's fencing lesson (although interrupted) allowed for a more aggressive duel from Viola than I had envisioned. Unlike another SHAKSPERian, I found the choice to disperse the interactions between Viola and Orsino across the surface of the film very interesting. Not only does the film in effect conform to the 20th c. film convention of the short take, but also in doing so, the film BUILDS the relationship between those two characters through an array of interactions: duelling, smoking, playing cards, playing pool, sneaking off together to the stable to hear Feste's song. As a result, I found Orsino and Viola's attraction for him quite believable, even both early critics from the 19c and my 20c students have often found her attraction to him inexplicable. Of course, they have moved her line "Oh barful strife, whoe'er I woo myself would be his wife" until after the LAST rather than the FIRST time that Orsino sends Viola to woo Olivia. I thought Helena Bonham Carter as Olivia was wonderful, especially in her shock at the end. And, most wonderful of all, they did not pull punches with Malvolio's rage or the disturbances in the ending. And even the extended recognition scene between Viola and Sebastian worked well, I thought. Laurie Osborne leosborn@colby.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:31:40 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0917 Antonia Fraser or Mel Gussow Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0917. Thursday, 5 December 1996. From: John Velz Date: Wednesday, 4 Dec 1996 21:36:58 +0200 Subject: Antonia Fraser or Mel Gussow There is a startling sentence in Mel Gussow's account of an interview with Lady Antonia Fraser about her recently published *Faith and Treason: The Story of the Gunpowder Plot*. The sentence appears in a parag. on p. B2, cont. from B1 of "The Living Arts" section of the *NYT* for Wed. Dec. 4, '96. . . . . . "There are frequent references to Shakespeare, who was contemporaneous with James I. Lady Antonia said that in writing 'Macbeth.' with its theme of regicide, Shakespeare was influenced by the Gunpowder Plot. 'Hamlet' and 'King Lear' came later, and therefore were Jacobean rather than Elizabethan plays. Because Ben Jonson and others were writing at the time, she said, the period was artistically a 'kind of cusp.'" . . . . . The fact is that *Macbeth* came last of the three plays mentioned, not first, as most undergraduate students of Shakespeare know. And *Hamlet* is an Elizabethan play. The sentence as phrased makes it seem that *Macbeth* is both an Elizabethan play and antecedent to a Jacobean event, the Gunpowder Plot. If one assumes that "later" is an editing error for "earlier", one is even worse off, because that would make the Jacobean plays earlier than the Tudor plays, and besides *Lear* 1605 is clearly a Jacobean play however you play the sentence. So it wouldn't do to edit "later" to "earlier" and "Jacobean" to "Elizabethan." It is all a muddle, as they say in London. The question is whether this is Lady Antonia's garbling or Gussow's? He ought to know better, as he has been writing theater and culture columns for *The New York Times* for a long time. I find it hard to believe that Lady Antonia could be this confused about the chronology of the Shakspeare canon. The misinformation running around about Shakespeare in the popular press and in pop history is appalling. *The Times* and/or Lady Antonia should do better than this! In sorrow, John Velz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 14:09:37 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0919 Re: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0919. Friday, 6 December 1996. (1) From: Frank Whigham Date: Thursday, 5 Dec 1996 08:38:03 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0916 Re: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* (2) From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 5 Dec 1996 14:32:15 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0916 Re: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frank Whigham Date: Thursday, 5 Dec 1996 08:38:03 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0916 Re: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* On deemphasizing Antonio's sexuality: The production cut Antonio's final two lines in 2.1: "But come what may, I do adore thee so, / That danger shall seem sport, and I will go." These always seem to me the first unmistakable evidence of his erotic affection for Sebastian, and I certainly experienced this cut as an explicit muting or silencing, though other positive aspects of the production remain clear enough (the handling of his exit, for instance). Why, though, disguise him with a dog-collar and granny glasses in the arrest scene? This too seemed like a desexualizing to me. Indeed, it always seems to me that Antonio is incapable of disguise, sexually polymorphous (or heterodox, anyway) but (otherwise?) seen instantly for who he is, whereas others' desires are generally veneered in some way. Did anyone see any sign that Olivia's desire for Cesario had any homoerotic content, as is often thought? Frank Whigham (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 5 Dec 1996 14:32:15 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0916 Re: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* I've not yet seen the film, but look forward to it--TN is one of my favorite scripts. The comments about the Toby et al. being "too rough" on poor Malvolio takes me back to the decisions we made in our production many years ago. I had sat through three gloomy, autumnal productions (one in Stratford) and was determined to reclaim the comedy of the piece. One of the decisions we made was that Malvolio deserved what he got. He was everything others here have said he is, and beyond that he was *simply unsuitable* for Olivia. I think I have mentioned before how the young actor playing him carried an executive clipboard with him and wrote down all of Olivia's many commands, and then he'd read them back when he needed them. The ring scene was a prime example of his prissy obsessiveness; he kept referring to his notes and quoting Olivia's "exact words." We said at the time that Malvolio was the perfect assistant principal. Olivia herself defines Malvolio for us when she says he's just too un-fun for his own good. She tells him in their first scene to lighten up, but he doesn't. In fact, he never does, and that's why he's deserving of punishment. At the end, in our production, when he was reduced to helpless fury by the whirligig of time, he spat out his threat of revenge and was greeted by a gale of laughter from the cast--and from the audience. The alternative, granting Malvolio "personal dignity," means allowing his "kind of Puritanism" to gain a toehold in our existence. We preferred to tell him to "sneck up." Yes, Toby and Maria knew they had gone too far, but it wasn't out of pity for Malvolio--it was out of concern for their standing with Olivia. Quash him and his kind, and quash them thoroughly. I know it is incredibly unfashionable to minimize the melancholy of this play, but you can take it from me that it can't be eradicated, even in our sunniest of productions. On the other hand, overemphasizing the pathos/bathos of Malvolio, Andrew, Toby, and Antonio, seriously tampers with the very very funny nature of the play. It's perverse, almost as bad as making Pyramus and Thisbe a serious attempt at poor-man's theatre. Anyway, that's our take on the comedies here in Newnan--make 'em laugh. If you want to bother them, do Timon or Titus. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company http://shenandoah.peachnet.edu/~dlyles/nctc/nctc.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 14:15:19 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0920 Re: Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0920. Friday, 6 December 1996. (1) From: Paul Hawkins Date: Thursday, 5 Dec 1996 13:43:02 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0915 Re: Politics (2) From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 05 Dec 1996 12:08:37 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0915 Re: Politics (3) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 5 Dec 1996 15:50:18 -0500 (EST) Subj: Is the Bard Bourgeois? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Thursday, 5 Dec 1996 13:43:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0915 Re: Politics Belinda Johnston is obviously wearied by the "tired essentialisms" of Andy Walker-Whyte and other non-Marxists. Many of us on-line are as tired of the tired relativisms of Marxists and cultural materialists unlimited, which her post then goes on to express. Do you see how easy it is to turn your non-thought against you? I think this impasse can be solved if instead of remaining tired we all wake up--and engage in honest discussion, where adjectives like "tired" are avoided because recognized for what they are--cheap tactics to avoid debate, reflecting the essential snobbery of those who use them. Paul Hawkins (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 05 Dec 1996 12:08:37 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0915 Re: Politics Hi, Belinda. >I see I have been accused by Jane Thompson of flippancy and non-argument. >Indeed, Thompson implies that the non-arguments proferred by 'we Marxists' is >the reason for the lapses into the hate speech exemplified by Walker-White's "I >despise Marxists". Show me an argument for 'human spirit' and 'creativity' >that doesn't resort to tired essentialisms and I'll accept the charge of >'non-argument'. Your answer demonstrates the closeness between "arguments" [sic] for either the existence or the non-existence of the human soul. Neither can be defended by reference to an agreed standard. It's like a Catholic and a behaviouralist arguing about morals: they'll never even agree on what to argue *about*. If Walker-White's are non-arguments, then so are yours: both simply state dogma. >Few of the Marxists I know would say the human subject is >'spiritless'- rather they would suggest that our very notions of spirit, >creativity, and artistic value are variable, culturally-bound and produced out >of a series of material relations. Therefore, we must be careful how we deploy >those terms. Of course. Likewise, however, one can certainly conceive a philosophical position in which material relations are products of spirit. Perhaps you should be careful how you deploy terms derived from economics. The totalizing primacy of "material relations" is as much a dogma as the belief in a human soul. >It is precisely this language that I object to in Walker-White-s >argument and my flippantly insulting response was intended simply to point out >that the notion of a sovereign individual subject (employed in Walker-White's >latest posting in his reduction of capitalism and marxism to individual >'motive') is a notion in need of interrogation, and worthy of suspicion. So is the ontological naivety of your materialism. Cheers, Sean. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 5 Dec 1996 15:50:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Is the Bard Bourgeois? Ms. Johnston, convinced that my motives are still of the ulterior kind, continues to dismiss my observations about the performing arts. Yet, while she says Marxists believe in the human spirit, she insists on using terminology like "human subject" and, with regard to me, "sovereign individual subject". This may be impretinent, but might I remind her that we are, after all, talking about human beings? As useful as a discussion of contexts for our beliefs may be, when we automatically attribute elitism to artists, and when we automatically assume that all Shakespeare productions outside the city limits are patronizing, we are forgetting something; namely, that most, if not all such productions, are not patronizing at all. They are selected for production by people in the community who want to put on a good show, who want to entertain their neighbors. The last thing they need is theorists who, ignorant of their personal backgrounds and intentions, judge them harshly for even thinking of putting on Shakespeare -- who, ideological considerations aside, is still a pretty darned good draw. Perhaps Ms. Johnston could answer this for me; when a leftist thinker on this list stated -- as a categorical fact -- that performing artists are elitists, I took it to mean that he was saying he despised us. This list, so far as I know, is open to performing artists as well as academics. Since he knew he was addressing us directly, I took his comment as a direct insult, and responded in kind. While I regret my strong language, I am still wondering what, if any, is the qualitative difference between his remarks and mine? Andy White Urbana, IL ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 14:18:06 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0921 PERICLES Anthology Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0921. Friday, 6 December 1996. From: David Skeele Date: Thursday, 5 Dec 1996 14:55:15 -0500 Subject: Re: PERICLES Anthology Dear SHAKSPEReans, I have recently been made volume editor of Garland Press' anthology of essays on PERICLES, and I am now seeking contributions. Essays may be literary criticism or articles on PERICLES in production. If you are submitting a piece of literary criticism, however, please know that because they will be appearing alongside "classic" pieces of criticism from the 17th Century to the present, these new critical essays should probably be based in current methodologies (for example, a purely formalist analysis of the play may still be worthwhile and interesting, but such an approach will already have been covered by, say, Northrop Frye and a number of "myth-critics"). Because performance analysis of Shakespeare's plays is ground less well-trod, and because the mere fact of reporting on new and different performances automatically creates variety, I will not insist on the same from those writing on performance. In all cases, I will be extending a preference to those essays which do not rely inordinately on jargon (I do believe it is possible to write good post-structuralist criticism without burying the reader in a fog bank of quasi-scientific terminology). In terms of performance-based essays, I am particularly interested in accounts and analyses of German PERICLES'. If you are interested in submitting a paper, please send a description or proposal to me by E-mail, and I will contact you. If the description/ proposal is appropriate for the anthology, and does not repeat material already accepted, I will ask for a hard copy. Please send these initial postings before February 15 (I will probably set May 1 as the deadline for the hard copy). Many thanks for your interest, and I look forward to hearing from you. David Skeele Slippery Rock University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 14:21:21 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0922 Re: The New *Romeo and Juliet* Film Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0922. Friday, 6 December 1996. From: Steve Neville Date: Thursday, 5 Dec 1996 15:12:52 -0500 Subject: Romeo & Juliet I thought SHAKSPERIAN'S might find the following, which was posted on H-Film, interesting. The author was quite happy for me to pass it on : From: IN%"mpomeran@acs.ryerson.ca" "Murray Pomerance" 4-DEC-1996 17:15:11.09 I saw ROMEO & JULIET this afternoon--a print that was pretty hacked up, with many reels a good twenty units too yellow. It was a small theater--here in Toronto we have some film theaters just a little larger than a typical middle class living room. This one was full of kids from some high school, with a teacher who kept roving up and down the aisle before the film started, checking something off on a clipboard while the kids hooted and wheedled. They didn't stop hooting or wheedling, either, except during the violent sequences, and they thought Romeo's blowing away of Tybalt, "cool . . . neat . . .," which ought to be some sort of clue. When Juliet cried out in the tomb they broke into open-faced hysterical laughter (yes) and when she picked up Romeo's gun they wondered aloud, quite a few of them, all--needless to say--boys, whether she'd maybe shoot herself in the *breast* (emphasis theirs). Anyway . . . The opening of this thing, struck from BRAZIL and LA DOLCE VITA and DOG DAY AFTERNOON and who knows what other elemental forces---but struck quite craftily---really carried me away. Then the thing started slipping at the bizarrest frequency into moments of astonishing conventionality. For all its simplicity, for example, the scene where Romeo meets Juliet was simply captivating. And their wedding, with a boy soprano singing with a choir--again. And the balcony scene--I don't think it would be giving away too much to say that it is played in a swimming pool---really totally charming. Yet every kiss was Rock Hudson and Jane -----not Fonda, what's her name, with the black black hair and lying back in the hay?---Russell! Or for that matter, Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore. Or anybody else you can think of who's done a film with Kevin Bacon kissing somebody else who's also done a film with Kevin Bacon. But I have to say this for you cinephiles out there. There are two reasons to fork out the $5.00CA for a matineee, or its equivalent anywhere in the world. Well, three. (1) Claire Danes really is something, and she's let her hair grow. And though he takes a little while to get comfy, Leonardo shows that there *is indeed* something about him. So they're pretty and cute and adorable and all that, even drinking colored liquids in darkly lit chambers. (2) The film--speaking of darkly lit chambers--was shot by the incomparable Don McAlpine. This is what we have been waiting for him to do since PREDATOR. But I hope you all have better luck with your print than we did, up here in bozoland where somebody ruined the 70mm. print of VERTIGO. Then (3). Paul Sorvino is neat--somewhat Venezualan or Colombian. Very drunk. But for those of you who have been lying patiently--oh, so patiently--in wait lo these many decades to see this career slowly unfold, you go to this film to see Brian Dennehy. And I mean SEE, because he has very very little to say, but this is irrelevant. I have so rarely had the sense, in a single SHOT, of being taken INTO the character's heart. So there. Apparently a 70mm, 4-hour version of HAMLET is coming out next week, starring Madonna as Ophelia, Roseanne as Gertrude, Macauley Culkin as Hamlet, J. Fred Muggs as the Gravedigger, Hector Elizondo as Claudius, and David Duchovny as Horatio. Laertes is Denzel Washington and the wise old councillor, Polonius, is---who else? Joe Pesce. Oh yes, directed by Ronnie Howard, from a script by Quentin Tarantino, produced by John Travolta. No, wait----It's John Travolta as Hamlet . . . . Murray Regards Steve Neville sjnevil@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 14:23:25 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0923 Q: *Midsummer Nigth's Dream* and *All's Well That Ends Well* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0923. Friday, 6 December 1996. From: Cristina Keunecke Date: Friday, 6 Dec 1996 02:10:22 -0200 Subject: Q: *Midsummer Nigth's Dream* and *All's Well That Ends Well* I am writing an article about the psychological aspects of the characters in the plays *A Midsummer Night's Dream" and "All's Well That Ends Well". In this article, I will follow two main lines: the first is about the confused love relationship between men and women; the second, which is strictly related to the first, is about the pertinacious search for a rejected love (I mean, the two characters named Helena). I would be glad if someone in this listserv could help me with some ideas or opinions about the characters of these plays. Or at least, if someone could tell me where can I find some on-line articles about this, for reference. If possible, send mail directly to me. Any help would be welcome. Cristina Keunecke rsf4492@pro.via-rs.com.br========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 09:30:00 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0924 Re: Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0924. Monday, 9 December 1996. (1) From: John Drakakis Date: Friday, 6 Dec 1996 20:00:27 -0000 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0920 Re: Politics (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 06 Dec 1996 20:12:37 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0920 Re: Politics (3) From: Belinda Johnston Date: Saturday, 7 Dec 1996 14:57:18 +1100 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0920 Re: Politics (4) From: David Evett Date: Saturday, 7 Dec 1996 18:05:57 -0500 Subj: Politics (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Friday, 6 Dec 1996 20:00:27 -0000 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0920 Re: Politics We wait with baited breath for Paul Hawkins to show us all how to debate. Cheers John Drakakis (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 06 Dec 1996 20:12:37 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0920 Re: Politics Andy White writes > when a leftist thinker on this list That's me, I think. > stated -- as a categorical fact -- that performing artists are elitists... Ooh I never did! Hang on, I'll go and fetch back what I wrote... GIE> However popular drama used to be, it can hardly be said to be popular GIE> now. Just on numbers and the self-identification of class by GIE> theatre-goers (predominantly, they say they are 'middle') it must GIE> be called an elitist entertainment whether or not you approve of it GIE> being so. I recall Terry Hawkes writing in the 1960s or 70s on exit GIE> polls at theatres in Stratford on Avon. Either I'm not the "leftist thinker" (a label I find doubly charming, thank you!) or I'm being misrepresented. You've gone silent on the "Marxists Vs. the Globe" thread (your title), Andy. Is there any evidence to support the anecdote? Gabriel Egan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Belinda Johnston Date: Saturday, 7 Dec 1996 14:57:18 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0920 Re: Politics I certainly take Sean Lawrence's point that the seems to be a bit of a *differend* at work here- Andy White and I are obviously working with entirely different assumptions about the significations of the term 'human being'. I seem to have set myself up as the token vulgar Marxist here so perhaps I should make the context of my hypersensitivity to individualism somewhat clearer. I am living in a political and economic climater in which the excesses of individualist rhetoric have resulted in the absurd situation where an unemployed boilermaker is expected to negotiate an employment contract with a multinational without any recourse to a union or award wage. This championing of 'individual choice' is also enabling the destruction of a strong tradition of student activism through the abolition of compulsory student unionism, not to mention allowing our Prime Minister to publicly rejoie about the fact that one can now air one's racism without fear of reprisal. What does this have to do with Shakespeare? Well, my concern is that no mattter how well-intenioned one is about bringing Shakespeare to a marginalised community, the simple fact of putting on a production in a small town doesn't mean that it necessarily challenges the construction of Shakespeare as high culture. This is why I think it's important to think critically about the ideological nature of aesthetic categories and the role they have in bolstering certain kinds of political positions. But in order to speak or think about ideology, one has to see 'human beings' in a rather different way. In fact, in a way that calls into question the way we tend to imagine ourselves as autonomous entities with innate characteristics, at some essential level quite seperate from our social context. I, for one, apologise if White feels I am ascribing 'ulterior motives'. I question the terms you employ, Andy- not the project of performing Shakespeare, but rather the way in which you theorise its impact. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Saturday, 7 Dec 1996 18:05:57 -0500 Subject: Politics <> I am glad Belinda Johnston sees subjectivity as a needing (deserving?) "interrogation"; the problem with many Marxists is that they treat that issue as closed, the coffin nailed: "This is a late topic," they say, in their Cleesiest tones. But the reason that the topic keeps popping back out of the box on this list, and in critical discourse at large, is surely that it retains vitality: I don't think it's hopelessly liberal to suppose that suspicion ought not to equal culpability. As Tom Bishop reminded us some weeks back, in a query that got no response from Gabriel Egan or John Drakakis or Terence Hawkes, E. P. Taylor nearly two decades ago seems to many of us to have pulled a great many of those nails; if the more dogmatic materialists think he failed I'd be interested to know where and why. And my own query about the force and function of pleasure went equally unanswered. I am aware as I read current stuff that a good many people, recognizing the genuine explanatory value of materialist ideas about production, are nevertheless finding what seem to me persuasive inadequacies and limitations in those ideas, and especially their tendency to reduce all questions to questions of "politics"--those, such as Lars Engle, working with poststructuralist forms of Pragmatism seem to me especially interesting. Subjectively, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 09:39:22 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0925 Re: Recent Shakespeare FIlms Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0925. Monday, 9 December 1996. (1) From: Matthew Bibb Date: Friday, 06 Dec 96 12:00:08 PST Subj: The NEW Romeo and Juliet (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 7 Dec 1996 16:39:20 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0919 Re: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Bibb Date: Friday, 06 Dec 96 12:00:08 PST Subject: The NEW Romeo and Juliet It took me a few weeks after seeing Romeo and Juliet and observing all of you arguing about it before I was able to find the key I was looking for into my own argument. That key, oddly enough, was _Ransom_. Maybe Mel Gibson is good for something, after all. _Ransom_, for those of you lucky enough to have missed it, is an insult to intelligence. For a film promoting itself as a tense thriller, there is not one thrill or moment of tension to be found. As an example, at one point in the movie the villain holds a gun to the head of Mel Gibson's character. Everything about this scene, from camera angles to pulsating music, is meant to inspire nervousness in the audience. "Dear God," we are meant to think, "is he really going to shoot!??!?" Of course, we do not think this, because everyone in the audience knows that no movie starring Mel Gibson and costing God knows how much is going to end with the death of the lead character. Please trust me that this is not an isolated incident; _Ransom_ is chock-full of nonsense like this. I know, I know, when is he going to start talking about something relevant to SHAKSPER? I'm getting there. Whether or not _R & J_ is good Shakespeare - and I think it is - it is undeniably a good movie. Luhrmann as a director pulls out all the stops to keep his audience off-guard, to keep you interested in what happens next. Let's talk a little about some of the things that make this good Shakespeare, and then we'll swing around once more to why it's a good _movie_, and then I'll (thankfully) be done. The acting: Danes and DiCaprio are, as has been pointed out, young and pretty, but what's more important is that they are convincingly hot for each other. It's hard to pull off love at first sight if your actors don't look like they want to jump each other. Luckily, these two do. They also ain't bad as actors, and those who disparage their efforts aren't playing close attention. DiCaprio takes some time to warm up, and has a couple awkward line readings, but this almost seems okay coming from the love-sick, bad poetry-writing Romeo. And Danes is letter-perfect. Her lines sound the way all lines should, as if she thought them up right there. Let us also not forget the excellent supporting cast: The man who plays Mercutio (I can't remember his name and have never seen him before) was fantastic, as was the woefully underemployed Brian Dennehy (for all thirty seconds that he was onscreen), Diane Venora gives a performance as Gloria Capulet that solves one of the big problems I've always had with the play (see below). All in all, not bad. Uh-oh, I'm starting to run on. Better hurry up. Real quick...the problem I always had was with Lady Capulet turing on Juliet after Capulet's edict to marry Paris. For a character who has supported Juliet through all the rest of the play to suddenly turn on her always seemed awkward. Venora (and, presumably, Luhrmann) solves this problem by playing Gloria as a faded Southern belle, someone who was once beautiful but is beginning to show her age. She also plays Gloria as a woman in love with Paris. This is so cool. Gloria dances with Paris, takes flowers he brought to Juliet for herself, does everything but rip his clothes off. When Gloria turns on Juliet, she does so in disgust at Juliet's rejection of Paris, in realization of her own fading powers of seduction. It plays up the age/youth conflict to brilliant effect. So (he said, the end in sight) why is _R & J_ such a good movie? It manages to take Shakespeare and make him fresh, make him new, and keep you guessing. Luhrmann takes so many surprising twists during the course of the movie that by the time you reach the end you no longer know what to expect. And when Juliet ALMOST manages to stop Romeo, you actually find yourself, despite 400 years and countless versions, thinking, "My God, she's going to make it!" When she doesn't, it makes the tragedy of the story all the more real. It is that moment, that wonderful frisson of anxiety and desire, that _Ransom_ never manages to acheive, but Luhrmann, through sheer audacity and a demonstrated willingness to take creative risks, does. I have lots more that I COULD say, but lord knows I've rambled on enough as it is. I look forward to hearing what you think about all this. Matt Bibb UCLA Shakespeare Reading and Performance Group (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 7 Dec 1996 16:39:20 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0919 Re: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* To Frank Wigham-- The friend I saw 12N with not only saw the homoerotic content to Olivia's attraction to Cesario, but also felt that there was homoerotic attraction on Viola's part as well expressed in the desire to "take off the veil" and see the "painting"---this had not occured to me before and I am curious what others think about it. It does make sense in a way in terms of her not following the "text" that is in Orsino's "bosom"--though it could also be argued that Viola's motivations here are not erotically charged and stem from the sympathy (both have lost brothers, etc) and the fact that her ORIGINAL desire was to serve Olivia rather than Viola... I did however feel that Antonio's homoerotic desire for Sebastion was given its due (but maybe that's more because of the head full of criticism I came to this production with--Pequiney, etc.) ----To David Lyles.... Well, I don't know if the audience is totally suppossed to laugh at Malvalio by the last scene of the play, or of the movie...sure, as someone else suggested, Nunn and company did delete some of the emphasis on the NECESSITY of Malvolio's co-operation in restoring Viola to her woman's weeds (and I did see a production once that ended with the whole cast--sans Feste--running offstage allegedly in search of Malvolio)...but even with this de-emphasis I still believe there is a sense that Malvolio is "mightily abused" and even perhaps "more sinned against than sinning" and of course much of this is not explicit in ANY performance of the play, but it does help make sense of Toby's parallel chastisement and Feste's isolated and somewhat melancholy insouciance at the end of the play (despite the seeming pleasure he takes in "the whirligig of time")....Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 09:33:39 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0926 Last CFP: Shakespeare Yearbook 8 (1997): Hamlet on Screen Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0926. Tuesday, 10 December 1996. From: Holger Klein Date: Monday, 09 Dec 1996 16:47:29 +0100 Subject: Shakespeare Yearbook 8 (1997): Hamlet on Screen SHAKESPEARE YEARBOOK 8 (1997) "Hamlet on Screen": Last Call for Papers Until the end of February, 1997, the Shakespeare Yearbook can still accept contributions for this volume. By and large, all suggestions will be considered, but nothing more on Zeffirelli, please. What would be most welcome at this stage are contributions considering specific aspects or portions of the play in various film versions (we have something on the Mousetrap, e.g.), and contributions dealing with early versions, especially silent film versions, and less well-known but worthwhile later versions; something on To Be Or Not To Be (the film) might also be interesting, i.e. the inclusion of the play Hamlet within other films. Please contact (e-mail: holger.klein@sbg.at.ac OR fax OR write to: Professor Holger Klein, Institut f=FCr Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Universit=E4t Salzburg, Akademiestr. 24, A-5020 Salzburg, Tel. +43-662-8044-4422; fax: +43-662-8044-613. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:04:11 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0927 Re: Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0927. Tuesday, 10 December 1996. (1) From: Bruce Coggin Date: Monday, 9 Dec 1996 08:08:59 U Subj: Re: SHK 7.0924 Re- Politics (2) From: Miles Edward Taylor Date: Monday, 9 Dec 1996 09:26:09 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0924 Re: Politics (3) From: David Evett Date: Monday, 09 Dec 1996 16:10 ET Subj: Correction (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Coggin Date: Monday, 9 Dec 1996 08:08:59 U Subject: Re: SHK 7.0924 Re- Politics No, no, we wait with bated breath, as in abated. Geez. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Miles Edward Taylor Date: Monday, 9 Dec 1996 09:26:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0924 Re: Politics > Andy White writes > > GIE> However popular drama used to be, it can hardly be said to be popular > GIE> now. Just on numbers and the self-identification of class by > GIE> theatre-goers (predominantly, they say they are 'middle') it must > GIE> be called an elitist entertainment whether or not you approve of it > GIE> being so. I recall Terry Hawkes writing in the 1960s or 70s on exit > GIE> polls at theatres in Stratford on Avon. Allow me to be a little naive here, but this characterization raises two questions. Have "middle class" and "elitist" become synonymous? Now that would be interesting! Or are you suggesting something more subtle than that? Something like 80% of Americans consider themselves middle class, and that would be an awfully big elite. Maybe so big as to make the term "elite" essentially meaningless. Also, wouldn't an exit poll at Stratford be different than one at a community theater production, or even at a more regional festival such as the Oregon festival? I suppose even pop tripe like Whitney Houston could be called elitist if you look at the audience she played for when she went to Brunei and took a cool million to play the sultan's private party. It actually reminds me of the difference of playing at the Globe versus going to perform at the palace before the court. If it's the same play, the same performance, and the same actors, is the work of art elitist based wholly on its spectators? I don't claim to have the answers, but the answers your post implies seem counter-intuitive. Of course, education is almost always counter-intuitive. I'd just like to hear more. Thanks, Miles Taylor (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 09 Dec 1996 16:10 ET Subject: Correction I see in today's posting that a slip of the keyboard led me to misidentify the author of _The Poverty of Theory_ (recently reissued, by the way) as E. P. Taylor (the water-theorist?) rather than E. P. Thompson. In this line, that is, (apparent) flubs, what is John Drakakis' breath "baited " _with_? Correctively, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:05:59 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0928 Columbia University Seminar on Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0928. Tuesday, 10 December 1996. From: Jill Niemczyk Smith Date: Monday, 9 Dec 1996 13:08:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Columbia University Seminar on Shakespeare The COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SEMINAR ON SHAKESPEARE is pleased to announce that Bernice W. Kliman of Nassau Community College will be speaking on "Polanski's *Macbeth* Scripts: The Purpose of Revision" at our meeting on Friday, 13 December 1996 at the Faculty House on the Columbia University campus in New York City. Local and visiting Shakespeareans are welcome. Please contact Jill Niemczyk Smith at jan5@columbia.edu for further information. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:11:05 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0929 Re: Recent Shakespeare Films Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0929. Tuesday, 10 December 1996. (1) From: John Randolph Burrow Date: Monday, 9 Dec 1996 13:23:06 -0600 Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 5 Dec 1996 to 6 Dec 1996 (R&J movie) (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 09 Dec 1996 15:31:11 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0919 Re: Trevor Nunn's Twelfth Night (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Randolph Burrow Date: Monday, 9 Dec 1996 13:23:06 -0600 Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 5 Dec 1996 to 6 Dec 1996 (R&J movie) I just got the chance to see the new movie version of *Romeo & Juliet*. It was bright (garish), not excessively loud (which was a criticism I had read earlier), sometimes clever (newscasters as the prologue, Sycamore Fields for a beach arcade; the side-snides of a Globe Theater, displayed too prominently too many times; Merchant of Verona Beach; and making Mantua a trailer court mid-desert --all stick in memory yet), sometimes powerful (the power and wealth of the families came through more clearly than I'd ever seen on stage or on film, as did the violence with which the community lives--much more vivid than say, *West Side Story*, the equivalent updating). However, the supposedly excessive violence of the movie is just comic-book violence (very carefully avoiding anything directly onscreen, and Juliet dies with a very tiny bloodstain after taking a huge 9mm to her head). In fact the whole movie seems like a comic book--loudly colored, with 2D characters shouting dialogue, some bizarre angles of view, pretty-pictures-for-their-own-sake shots (like a police helicopter turning its floodlight off the street where romeo is hiding to pan up the Christ-of-the Andes figure, for no apparant reason), and sturm-und-drang coincidence of weather and mood or action (the sudden storm dakrening the film for Tybalt's murder). I actually accepted most of the acting. Pete Postelthwaite as Friar Laurence is probably the best (and I did enjoy most of the interpretation of that role until the screenwriter/director decided to change the whole concept of the mis-communication to Mantua and Romeo's return in order to include an entirely unmotivated and purposeless car chase). Both fathers are very interesting. DiCapprio does all right with his lines, and Danes is okay when her delivery is voice over. I didn't like some of the emphases made for the nurse, but overall the characterizations and acting worked well within the confines of this film. But the film, in the end, is very confining, really limited in its perspectives and understanding, and often cheap in its submission to an image (usually irrelevant to R&J) over an idea. The ending in particular stinks. The cops chasing Romeo to the tomb arises from nothing and then goes nowhere; it's just a chase for its own sake, period. Once that was over, I laughed aloud at the neon crosses and forest of candles (just one too many Madonna videos in the allusory background there) lighting tomb to have Romeo speak of Death keeping Juliet here in DARK to be his paramour. I also could not stop wondering what happened to the hundreds of cops from dozens of cop cars and helicopters once Romeo got inside the church/now-suddenly-transformed-into-a-tomb. Having Juliet wake while Romeo drinks his poison added no useful meaning or irony. The director clearly chose to make Romeo the star, thus turning Juliet's death to an afterthought to be undermined by a happy-memory sequence of their meeting and separating (and with both dead, just who is supposed to be having these memories? The now thoroughly manipulated audience merely). When they stuck to simply updating the story, the creative team actualy did all right. When they felt moved to change Shakespeare, they screwed things up (although overlapping Paris's courting and R&J's one night together did play well). The kids'll like it well enough (much as old folks my age enjoyed Zefirelli when we were whipper-snappers). "Let me not to the marriage of true minds Admit impediments. Love is not love Which alters when it alterations finds." --Bill the Bard, Sonnet 116 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 09 Dec 1996 15:31:11 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0919 Re: Trevor Nunn's Twelfth Night Frank Whigham asks: > Why, though, disguise him {Antonio} with a >dog-collar and granny glasses in the arrest scene? This too seemed like a >desexualizing to me. I wonder if it's a contemporary twentieth century reference to supposedly gay priests, which doesn't seem to follow from the desexualizing of Antonio's crush on Sebastian. I remain puzzled. >Did anyone see any sign that Olivia's desire for Cesario had any homoerotic >content, as is often thought? I feel that Cesario's relationship with Orsino (in the movie) is far more homoerotic than Olivia's relationship with Cesario. I think that implication is created by the romantic situations that Nunn plans for Orsino and Cesario; listening to Feste sing in the semi-darkness, they almost kiss, etc. Cesario and Olivia are confined to domestic settings and brighter light (in general). Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:14:01 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0930 Q: Last Lines of Lear Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0930. Tuesday, 10 December 1996. From: Ed Wells Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 00:15:47 -0800 Subject: Last Lines of Lear I downloaded an electronic version of Lear from http://www.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au/~matty/Shakespeare/ This text assigns the last four lines of the play to Albany rather than to Edgar. Is this a variant reading, or a mistake in the edition? Ed Wells ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 09:38:54 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0931 December 11, 1996, Interruption in Service Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0931. Thursday, 12 December 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, December 12, 1996 Subject: December 11, 1996, Interruption in Service Dear SHAKSPEReans, Bowie State University had a complete power failure yesterday. If you tried to reach SHAKSPER yesterday and were unable, please try again. Hardy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 09:51:15 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0932 Re: Last Lines of Lear Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0932. Thursday, 12 December 1996. (1) From: Ron Moyers Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 14:31:27 -0600 (CST) Subj: RE: SHK 7.0930 Q: Last Lines of Lear (2) From: Michael C LoMonico Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 16:34:32 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0930 Q: Last Lines of Lear (3) From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 15:09:06 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0930 Q: Last Lines of Lear (4) From: Keith Richards Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 18:15:21 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0930 Q: Last Lines of Lear (5) From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 19:44:32 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0930 Q: Last Lines of Lear (6) From: A.E.B. Coldiron Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 20:00:49 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0930 Q: Last Lines of Lear (7) From: Pervez Rizvi Date: Thursday, 12 Dec 96 12:19:15 GMT Subj: Last speech in Lear (8) From: Skip Nicholson Date: Wednesday, 11 Dec 1996 18:42:48 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0930 Q: Last Lines of Lear (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Moyers Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 14:31:27 -0600 (CST) Subject: RE: SHK 7.0930 Q: Last Lines of Lear The last four lines of _King Lear_ are assigned to Duke (Albany) in the 1608 quarto; they are assigned to Edgar in the first folio. Most modern editors use the folio assignment, particularly due to the "we that are yong" statement seeming to be more appropriate from Edgar. --Ron Moyer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael C LoMonico Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 16:34:32 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0930 Q: Last Lines of Lear In response to Ed Wells' question, the last four lines of Lear are given to Albany in the First Quarto (Pied Bull). All subsequent quartos and folios give the lines to Edgar. Mike LoMonico Shakespearemag@juno.com (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 15:09:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0930 Q: Last Lines of Lear Q assigns the last lines to Albany. As Kenneth Muir comments in his Arden edition of the play, "Critics have argued that the last speech "should be given to the person of highest rank who survives. But Edgar has to reply to Albany's speech, and the words 'We that are young' come somewhat more naturally from his mouth than from that of Albany." Sara van den Berg University of Washington (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith Richards Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 18:15:21 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0930 Q: Last Lines of Lear Albany speaks the last 4 lines in the 1608 Quarto (as printed in the Oxford Shakespeare). (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 19:44:32 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0930 Q: Last Lines of Lear I have always given it to Albany..never even entered my mind to give it to Edgar... Have you noticed that Major characters never seem to have the last lines (Richmond in R3, Fort in H, Mal in the scot play...ok so Antony in JC) (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: A.E.B. Coldiron Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 20:00:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0930 Q: Last Lines of Lear Just happened to have my copy of the First Folio facs (Hinman) in reach; p. 817 (Folio 309) has Edgar speaking what he feels, or what he ought to say. Ditto Bevington. Pelican notes that the quarto has Albany at 324. (My Riverside is out of town, sorry.) Summary of issues involved w/the quartos (Q1, 1608? the "Pied Bull" Q; and Q2, 1619 with a fake date of 1608) & folio (1623 of course) is in Bevington Appendix I ppA-17-18, for a start. Interesting stuff--I'll bet the real experts are on this very list. There's an essay collection--_Division of the Kingdom: Shakespeare's Two Lears_ or something close to that--early 80s. Pollard's study early in the century of folios and quartos is always good. Peter Blayney also wrote on this, I believe. Your query reminds us how important textual and bibliographic annotations are (or should be) to transcribers of electronic texts. Hope that helps, for a start at least, A. Coldiron Visiting Scholar, Johns Hopkins University Assistant Professor, Towson State University (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pervez Rizvi Date: Thursday, 12 Dec 96 12:19:15 GMT Subject: Last speech in Lear On the question whether the last speech in Lear belongs to Albany or Edgar: this is another of the differences between the Quarto and Folio texts, one of the others being the absence from F of the servants' compassionate dialogue after Gloucester's blinding, discussed here a few weeks ago. Q gives the speech to Albany, F to Edgar. If the current theory, that F represents Shakespeare's revised version of Lear, is correct, it justifies giving the speech to Edgar in modern edited texts. But one or two things can be said in favour of Q: - It is usual in the tragedies for the senior figure of authority left alive at the end of the play to say the final words (e.g. Hamlet, Othello, Macbeth, Romeo, Julius Caesar, Timon, Coriolanus, Antony and Cleo, Cymbeline). In Lear, this means Albany. - The actual speech prefix in Q is "Duke". This is the kind of s.p. usually found in foul papers, suggesting that, at least when he first wrote the play, Shakespeare gave the speech to Albany. - There's the theory that the copy for Q was put together by an actor or someone else familiar with the play as performed. If so, this supports Albany because such a person could be expected to remember accurately who spoke the closing speech. (8)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Nicholson Date: Wednesday, 11 Dec 1996 18:42:48 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0930 Q: Last Lines of Lear You get your choice. The first printing of _Lear_, the 1608 quarto (which the editor of the on-line version you found in Sydney uses) says Albany. The First Folio of 1623 gives the lines to "Duke." _Lear_ is a particularly messy play textually since the disagreements between the quarto and the folio are more frequent and more substantial than happens with most of the other plays. About the last four lines, Kenneth Muir, editor of the 1972 Arden Shakespeare edition, argues: "These lines are given to Albany by Q[uarto]; and critics have argued that the last speech should be given to the person of highest rank who survives. But Edgar has to reply to Albany's speech, and the words 'We that are young' come somewhat more naturally from his mouth than from that of Albany." And that's where Muir puts them. You pays your money and you takes, &c. Skip Nicholson ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:12:36 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0933 Q: Locating Videos Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0933. Thursday, 12 December 1996. From: Deanna Gregg Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 08:28:10 -0800 Subject: [Q: Locating Videos] Would anyone know how to find these two videos? 1. "Kiss Me, Petruchio" -- a documentary of New York Spring Festival's in Central Park, starring Raul Julia and Meryl Streep. Directed by Wilfred Leach, we think (video is about 15 yrs. old). 2. "The Making of Polanski's Macbeth," a documentary of Roman Polanski's , made in the 1970's. Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:18:09 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0934 Re: Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0934. Thursday, 12 December 1996. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 12:04:58 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0927 Re: Politics (2) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 17:48:28 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0927 Re: Politics (3) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 11 Dec 1996 00:26:01 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0895 Re: Politics: Marxists, Elitism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 12:04:58 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0927 Re: Politics Dave Evett asks, >In this line, that is, (apparent) flubs, what is John Drakakis' breath "baited >" _with_? Well, taking Shakespeare into account (Angel and ministers of grave defend us!), I'd say baited with poison. Yours (helpfully), Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 17:48:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0927 Re: Politics Mr. Taylor has helped us out by locating the quote that set me off on my tangent about leftist thought. Unfortunately, he mistakenly identified me as the author. It was Mr. Egan who wrote the remarks about 'elitist entertainment.' Mr. Taylor's observations following that quote agree with my own. > Allow me to be a little naive here, but this characterization raises two > questions. Have "middle class" and "elitist" become synonymous? Now that > would be interesting! Or are you suggesting something more subtle than that? Precisely. It seemed to me to be a matter of guilt by association, which is a very flimsy argument. As for other references to Tory reforms in the UK, as a member of a student organization here at the U of Illinois demanding union representation for all graduate students who work as "teacher's assistants" (read: professors with only a fraction of the pay, and no benefits) I can sympathize completely. There is indeed a cult of self among right-wing thinkers every bit as dangerous as the one which I have spentd some bandwidth castigating here. But I fail to see how the Tory reforms have much bearing on the struggles of performing artists to bring productions to the stage. There is a world of difference between the sick fantasies of Ayn Rand fanatics and the humane notionsof most actors, directors and designers. Mr. Egan asks about my silence; I am currently preparing my best leather shoe for consumption; what I said about the lawsuit at the Globe was on the testimony of a friend in London, and was not based on any text concerning the case. I will be glad to repent in sackcloth and ashes if my story turns out to be false. As for my comments on left-wing ideology and its rejection of the essential humanity of the theatre, I stand firm. Andy White Urbana, IL (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 11 Dec 1996 00:26:01 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0895 Re: Politics: Marxists, Elitism Andy White has a reading of "Farewell My Concubine" > My experience with the elite is that far from making > theater possible, they stifle the very creative impulses > that brought us to the stage in the first place. . . . > Perhaps if you took time to see (or see again, I should > hope) the CHinese film "Farewell My Concubine", which > details the impossible rigors of the performing arts, and > teh ways in which the elite controls and perverts the > artist -- maybe then you'd see the tragic results from > the facile theories you use to dismiss what we try to do. I read "Farewell My Concubine" just the opposite way. Isn't the whole point that the kind of theatre portrayed in the film has fossilized into a compulsive repetition of just one dramatic scene which actors are insanely expected to waste half a lifetime learning to perfect? This surely is dead theatre which has become entirely detached from living culture and which dooms itself to irrelevance. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:24:59 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0935 Re: Shakespeare Films Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0935. Thursday, 12 December 1996. (1) From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 19:49:07 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0929 Re: Recent Shakespeare Films (2) From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 19:59:10 -0500 Subj: R3 (3) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 12 Dec 96 08:47:00 CST Subj: Shakespeare films: Looking for Richard (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 19:49:07 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0929 Re: Recent Shakespeare Films The important thing about Verona Beach is that kids are excited about R&J after that ?????Did anyone else note that Juliet's mother seems to be on valium...certainly explains a lot of things for me if she was..things I never been able to explain before Just returned from taking a Acting Shakespeare class to LOOKING FOR RICHARD(my second trip)..we have to somehow band togeher ,Shakespeare lovers, and give this man some support..he's doing great things for the Bard.. how can we get more to see this fine piece of film..???? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996 19:59:10 -0500 Subject: R3 Is there any notice of when there is to be a screening fo the 1912 Richard III which was donated to the NYFILM institute(I think).When will we be able to see it? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 12 Dec 96 08:47:00 CST Subject: Shakespeare films: Looking for Richard I finally caught up with this film last night. I saw it with my spouse and 17-year-old daughter, who recently played Margaret in her high school production of the play (which was amazingly good). We all enjoyed it immensely. I thought Pacino had just the right blend of conversation, rehearsal, interviews, and performance to engage a fairly broad audience. Most of the talking heads did a good job (even if they did poke a little fun at scholars at one point). What I enjoyed most was the cuts back and forth from early readings to rehearsal to performance with many of the scenes; it's rare to see actors "in process" unless you're actually involved in theater and I've always found it fascinating. I thought the actual performances in the scenes from the play were good overall; I was pleasantly surprised by Alec Baldwin's Clarence, a bit disappointed by Winona Ryder's Lady Anne. I plan to add the video to my collection when it's released (assuming it doesn't cost a fortune). Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:26:25 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0936 Q: Tone of "Madam" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0936. Thursday, 12 December 1996. From: Ron Dwelle Date: Thursday, 12 Dec 1996 12:52:59 -0500 Subject: Tone of "Madam"? "Seems, Madam? Nay, it is...." My students think that Hamlet's use of the term "Madam" to his mother is a form of sneering condescension. I'm more inclined to think it is a language/cultural change, then to now. I can't find any reference to the term or its use. Any ideas? Pointers? Thanks ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:43:06 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0937 Season's Greetings and Reminder (UNSUBing and NOMAIL Options) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0937. Friday, 13 December 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, December 13, 1996 Subject: Season's Greetings and Reminder (UNSUBing and NOMAIL Options) Dear SHAKSPEReans, Today, is the last day of classes for the fall semester here at Bowie State -- actually, we are making up the classes missed on Wednesday as a result of the mysterious power failure. In a week, finals will be over and I'll have some time off. I will be at the MLA Convention in Washington, DC, living in the area as I do, and I hope to see some SHAKSPEReans there and at the Folger Library tea. To all, I offer seasonal greetings and my best wishes for the New Year. This is also the time of year to remind members who will be away from their accounts of the available options: UNSUBscribing and SETting NOMAIL. UNSUBscribing: If you have joined SHAKSPER as part of a class or on a short-term basis or if you will be losing your account, please UNSUBscribe. To do so, send this -- UNSUB SHAKSPER to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu leaving the subject line blank. SETting NOMAIL: If you are going to be away from your account for a time, then SET your SHAKSPER account to NOMAIL. To do this, send the following message -- SET SHAKSPER NOMAIL to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu again leaving the subject line blank. When you want to resume your SHAKSPER mailings, send -- SET SHAKSPER MAIL -- to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu To order a list of LISTSERV commands, send -- GET LISTSERV COMMANDS -- to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu If you have other questions or problems, contact me at SHAKSPER@ws.BowieState.edu, at Hardy.Cook@BowieState.edu, or at HMCook@boe00.BowieState.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:38:01 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0938 Polar Express at Houghton Mifflin Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0938. Friday, 13 December 1996. From: Thomas Bishop Date: Thursday, 12 Dec 1996 13:42:46 -0500 Subject: Polar Express at Houghton Mifflin Dear friends and colleagues, I'm forwarding a request for email to a book donation project. >the Houghton-Mifflin publishing co. is giving books to children's >hospitals; how many books they give depends on how many emails they receive >from people around the world. for every 25 emails they receive, they give >one book--it seems like a great way to help a good cause. > >all you have to do is email share@hmco.com. > >If you want to see the web pages: > >http://www.hmco.com/hmco/trade/hmi/polar/ I have not followed this up myself. Happy reading. Tom ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:44:06 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0939 Re: Teaching: Video, Stage Performance, and Reading Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0939. Friday, 13 December 1996. From: Bill Griffin Date: Wednesday, 11 Dec 1996 14:43:27 -0500 Subject: Re: Teaching: Video, Stage Performance, and Reading To Bob Dennis: I recently compiled the results of a survey on teaching Shakespeare mailed to all members of the SAA. I received 80 responses to questions on purpose/goals, methods, etc. The results should come out in the fall or spring issue of Shakespeare and the Classroom published by Ohio Northern U. If you'd like a copy, send me you address. Bill Griffin ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:49:24 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0940 Re: Shakespeare Films and Videos Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0940. Friday, 13 December 1996. (1) From: Charles Ross Date: Thursday, 12 Dec 1996 16:26:31 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0925 Re: Recent Shakespeare FIlms (2) From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Thursday, 12 Dec 1996 16:41:46 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0933 Q: Locating Videos (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Ross Date: Thursday, 12 Dec 1996 16:26:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0925 Re: Recent Shakespeare FIlms Query to my "amici" Frank Whigham and Chris Stroffolino: I have no objection to Antonio's possible erotic attraction to Sebastian and no clue as to Shakespeare's view of the matter, but I wonder if we are not hearing the language of friendship, not love? Is there anything at all in the play that suggests the erotic reading? It seems to me Sebastian might, just might take offense if the language were erotic, since he shows no reciprocal interest, but he does not seem to react other than as he would to a mate. And no one else reacts (or do they?). For hidden eros, you really can't beat the two French lords in Alls Well, 3.6. I'm sure I'll be misunderstood for this posting, but it's hectic and late in the semester, so here goes. Charles Ross Purdue (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Thursday, 12 Dec 1996 16:41:46 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0933 Q: Locating Videos I own "Kiss Me"..I bought it through The Writing Co. in Culver City Ca..they have a Shakespeare catalogue. Would love the other myself. If you want I'll send you more details on it when I get back to work tomorrow. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:59:12 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0941 Re: Last Lines of Lear Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0941. Friday, 13 December 1996. (1) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Thursday, 12 Dec 1996 20:20:57 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0932 Re: Last Lines of Lear (2) From: Sydney Kasten Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 15:36:17 +0200 (IST) Subj: Last lines of Lear (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Thursday, 12 Dec 1996 20:20:57 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0932 Re: Last Lines of Lear I wonder why people think Albany has to be old, too old to say "we who are young": isn't he (when he is the speaker) comparing himself to Lear? Since Goneril had some expectation of having children (otherwise her father's curse of barrenness would have had no meaning), she, and perhaps her husband too, could qualify as "young." Anyone who wants to see what the Q and F look like in comparison to each other should examine Michael Warren's parallel facsimile edition. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sydney Kasten Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 15:36:17 +0200 (IST) Subject: Last lines of Lear With respect to the editors who ascribe the lines to Edgar on the basis of *we that are young*, they are ignoring *shall never see so much*. To have been banished by a beloved and respected (tautology?) father, to have seen him blinded, to witness his despair, and to be forced to protect him anonymously is to have seen and borne much. While it may be in character for Edgar to play down his own purgatory in the light of his sovereign's, in doing so he would be devaluating his filial sentiments. Moreover, Albany, like Forinbras, Malcolm etc., has taken command, and for Edgar to usurp the closing lines would not be in character. I would consider a more compelling reason to ascribe the lines to Edgar would be the direction of Albany's previous lines to Edgar and Kent. Kent has given his heart rending answer, and it remains for Edgar to give his. The lines could be contrued as such, but in that case he should be obeying the regent and not *the weight of this sad time*. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:02:17 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0942 Re: Tone of "Madam" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0942. Friday, 13 December 1996. (1) From: Kelly A. Malone Date: Thursday, 12 Dec 1996 22:25:12 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0936 Q: Tone of "Madam" (2) From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 12 Dec 1996 23:10 ET Subj: SHK 7.0936 Q: Tone of "Madam" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kelly A. Malone Date: Thursday, 12 Dec 1996 22:25:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0936 Q: Tone of "Madam" In "The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England 1500-1800," Lawrence Stone writes that "early seventeenth-century convention [for modes of address from children to parents] was stiff, formal, and deferential, parents being addressed as 'Sir' and 'Madam'"(260). Of course, Hamlet is a rather old child, but the conventional mode of address might still stick. Kelly Malone (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 12 Dec 1996 23:10 ET Subject: SHK 7.0936 Q: Tone of "Madam" You could always start with the concordances; Spevack records 526 uses of the term in 32 plays. Not surprisingly, there is a rough correlation between the number of uses per play and the relative importance in each play of the women of rank to whom the word is normally addressed; thus there are lots of them in _AWW_ (the Countess) and _Ant_ (Cleopatra), none at all in _Wiv_ and _1H4_. Some of them, like Capulet's to Juliet as he is raging at her attempt to escape marriage to Paris, are ironic; but the great majority merely indicate the respect due to age, station, and motherhood. I have not taken time to work out whether the word is more likely to occur in relatively public situations, such as the one in _Ham_ 1.2,than in tetes a tetes; it may be worth notice that although the word occurs a round dozen times in the Riverside text of _Ham_, including 3 others in 1.2 (twice by Hamlet, once by Claudius), there are none in the closet scene. Concordantly, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:05:45 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0943 Antony & Cleo - Washington DC Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0943. Friday, 13 December 1996. From: Jimmy Jung Date: Thursday, 12 Dec 1996 16:04 Subject: Antony & Cleo - Washington DC Antony and Cleopatra is on stage in Washington DC, and it's a pretty cool production, especially if you like snakes and cats. The stage is a sparse grey affair, often in the configuration of a pyramid, that manages to hint at the attraction of Egypt that lingers and keeps pulling Antony across the Mediterannian. And while this sparseness seems to capture the cold Roman lifestyle, I felt like the Egyptian scenes needed a little more. Egypt is depicted as little more than a day bed or a giant cat. I understand the production chose this simple approach believing that no set could match the opulence of the imagination, and I tend to agree; nevertheless, I wished for just a little more. At least a pillow for the Queen to recline on (and maybe some ferns and throw pillows and a dimple boy with a big feather fan). The Egyptian costumes were exotic enough to transport you to this odd, far-off land where the natives have a different perspective and priorities than the Romans. I really enjoyed the male leads. Antony is the noblest of soldiers; his vacillation between she-loves-me/she's-using-me in the later part of the play push right past the edge of sanity to let you know how his love and his honor are tearing him up. Of all the Antony's I remember, this one has the loosest grip on his mental state. The real highlight for me was Caesar. I don't know how to explain it, except to say, can you imagine a skinnier shorter David Hyde Pierce (Frasier's kid brother) still giving you the willies? Imagine Caesar was that wimp-geek you usta beat up in the locker room, but now he's got the Roman Army and revenge on his mind. Add in a dash of incest and a touch of sadness and envy, 'cause he's not as cool as Antony and you've got a Caesar who really ought to be in therapy, when he's not taking over the world. Okay, here's a question. Helen Carey plays Cleopatra and I think she's great. Last month, her Queen Margaret was scarry and heartwrenching and, when she played Lady Macbeth it was the reason to see the show (I'd have put her in the title role). However, as Cleopatra, the choice was made for her to play Cleopatra for comedy in the first half of the show. Certainly, the words allow for great laughter, at the expense of Cleopatra's vanity, but the result, was a cartoon character, not that lass unparalleled, for whom Antony abandons two wives and a third of the world. I was much more intrigued by the second half Cleopatra and her struggle to survive and/or become "more Roman." My question; does Cleo normally get played for that much laughter? There was a last moment substitution for the fig-asp salesman. Even so, like many of the smaller parts, I thought it was handled wonderfully; this simple man providing the Queen of Egypt a final perspective in her last moments of life. The part is normally played by Floyd King, the companies comic-stalwart. Could someone else who sees the play, tell me how this scene plays with Mr. King; I have a hard time imagining him on stage without laughter, and I assume he defies that expectation. For those of you doing the MLA thing, I recommend it, but my understanding is the run has sold well and tickets may be tough to find (202-418-4808). Cymbeline is also playing at the smaller and quirkier Washington Shakespeare company (703-418-4808). (Quirkier in a good way) I look forward to seeing it, as I don't know how it ends. I suspect it is tough for many of us to be genuinely surprised by Shakespeare, but when I saw Two Gentlemen last year, the ending was an actual surprise. For that reason I've decided not to read Pericles, Timon and Henry 8. I'll just bide my time; how long do you think I'll have to wait? jimmy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:07:25 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0944 Re: Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0944. Friday, 13 December 1996. From: Norm Holland Date: Thursday, 12 Dec 96 22:02:53 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0934 Re: Politics I'm answering the leftists vs. the individual debate as someone who's written extensively on the psychology of individuals and the importance of taking that psychology into account when we talk about audience response. I am also a loyal union member and I think of myself as far left, certainly too far to the left for most of my friends. (Chomsky is my political guru.) I think the concept of the individual as addressed in, say, psychoanalysis has nothing to do with the rightwing rhetoric about people dealing individually with megacorporations. To dismiss the idea of the individual and importance of the individual and the exciting things we are learning about the brains and minds of individuals because the right misuses the concept is silly. It is tossing out the individual baby with the rhetorical bathwater. --Best, Norm Holland========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 10:06:58 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0845 Q: New Globe Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0945. Saturday, 14 December 1996. From: John Cox Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 11:24:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: New Globe I may have missed this information, if it was posted recently, but I wonder if anyone knows what's playing next summer at the New Globe on Bankside, when it's playing, and how to purchase tickets. Thanks in advance, John Cox ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 10:15:14 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0946 Re: Tone of "Madam" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0946. Saturday, 14 December 1996. (1) From: Tad Davis Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 09:53:23 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0936 Q: Tone of "Madam" (2) From: Margaret Brockland-Nease Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 10:17:21 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0936 Q: Tone of "Madam" (3) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 13:36:40 -0500 (EST) Subj: Tone of "Seems, Madam" (4) From: John Velz Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 19:05:43 +0200 Subj: Madam (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Davis Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 09:53:23 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0936 Q: Tone of "Madam" Ron Dwelle writes: >My students think that Hamlet's use of the term "Madam" to his mother is a form >of sneering condescension. I'm more inclined to think it is a language/cultural >change, then to now. That may be, but the speech as a whole certainly sounds like a criticism of her shallowness: "SEEMS, madam? Nay, it IS. I know not SEEMS." It may be that your students' perception of the word "madam" is colored by Hamlet's overall attitude of withdrawal and rebuke in this scene. "Sneeing" seems a bit strong, but there is certainly condescension in the way Hamlet views others at court. Which reminds me of the night I went to see Zefferelli's "Hamlet" with a 17-year-old. Each time Hamlet dared his elders to a verbal combat, the young man let out a low gasp of admiration: "Wow." I believe the current term for being bested in this kind of verbal encounter is "salty biscuits." Tad Davis (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Brockland-Nease Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 10:17:21 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0936 Q: Tone of "Madam" The question about the tone of "madam" reminds me of something one of my graduate school professors, Sidney Homan, once suggested--I don't recall whether it was from his own reading or something he had gotten from someone else. In the same passage, Hamlet plays off of his mother's remark "Thou knowst 'tis common, all that lives must die..." with "Ay, madam, 'tis common." My professor suggested that this use of "common" by Hamlet might be a sneer at his mother's lusty behavior in her second marriage--she has become a "common woman," or prostitute. My OED is not at hand on my Christmas break (nor is my *Hamlet* text, so my quotations are approximate), but I wonder whether "madam" had its connotation of manager of prostitutes in the 16th century. The line of thinking is certainly not foreign to the play, with Hamlet's accusation later that Polonius is a fishmonger. Margaret Brockland-Nease (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 13:36:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Tone of "Seems, Madam" There are two things going on, from what I can tell; one, that Hamlet as a Prince has been raised separately from his parents, both mum and dad, and has been taught to address them in public in a formal manner. Two, that Hamlet is directly, and perhaps passionately, responding to his mother's use of the word "seems". She's accusing him of putting on an act of grief. He, far from putting on an act, is sincere in it. And he proceeds to list all the things his mother did when she (as far as he's concerned) merely pretended to be sad at his father's death. Note the emphasis on "Fruitful river of the eye" and his reference to "Niobe" later on. I read particular sarcasm in his Madam, in that he has to address her as madam and yet is very angry at her insinuation that he's acting. When I performed the "inky cloak" speech, I found my anger rising in spite of efforts to control it. My own mother (Hamlet's speaking here) is humiliating me in public, and my inclination is to give as good as I get. That's why Claudius intervenes, IMHO, since it's obvious that Gertrude can't control the passion of her son. Just my two ducats' worth. Andy White Urbana, IL (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 19:05:43 +0200 Subject: Madam About seventeenth-century modes of address to parents by children. It is a mark of the social conservatism of Texas that traditional families of all social ranks in modernday Texas preserve the decorum of the seventeenth century: Boys and girls often call their parents "Sir" and "Ma'am". If I am not mistaken, the mark of deferential courtesy is fading at this late date, less common now than when I first came to live in Texas in 1963, but very much alive, still, particularly in rural areas. My students, male and female alike, used to call me "Sir" even when I protested, and apologized saying "Sorry Sir; it's an old habit with me; only way to address my father, or any other man older than me." John Velz ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 10:22:10 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0947 Re: Videos; Two Lords; Ossified Art Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0947. Saturday, 14 December 1996. (1) From: Deanna Gregg Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 11:28:33 -0800 Subj: SHK 7.0940 Re: Shakespeare Films and Videos -Reply (2) From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 14:55:40 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0940 Re: Shakespeare Films and Videos (3) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 19:05:17 -0500 (EST) Subj: Ossified Art (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Deanna Gregg Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 11:28:33 -0800 Subject: SHK 7.0940 Re: Shakespeare Films and Videos -Reply Many thanks for responses re the "Kiss Me, Petruchio" video. B. Geisey says it can be found through: Films Incorporated Video 5547 N. Ravenswood Ave. Chicago, IL 60640-1199 (800) 323-4200 or (312) 878-2600 x329. We're still looking for the Polanski one. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 14:55:40 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0940 Re: Shakespeare Films and Videos Charles Ross comments: > For hidden eros, you really can't beat the two French lords in Alls Well, 3.6. Perhaps I'm missing some common critical interpretation, but a quick glance at the online text at available at "http://the-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/ Comedy/allswellthatendswell/allswellthatendswell.3.6.html" doesn't show anything but the plotting against Parolles and a segue towards the Helena/ Widow scene. Certainly nothing with quite so much homoerotic potential (in choice, not in necessity) as Antonio's first scene with Sebastian. If you see something different, however, I'd love to hear about it. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 19:05:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ossified Art While I agree that the Beijing Opera performers, by the end of the film, were pretty much marginalized and their art form stale, I would direct Mr. Egan and others to the rousing atmosphere of the original opera house, one at least as chaotic and proletarian as the Globe. Sure, there were rules on how to perform, and there were traditions to be respected, but they were there not for the sake of having rules, they existed because it was what people loved to see. The competition among vendors in the pre-revolutionary Chinese theatre was raucous and a part of the spectacle, and people sang along with their favorite tunes, etc. Spontaneity was permitted in the context of a performance in those days, much as it was in Shakespeare's day. Mao and his wife ignored all that when they ditched and murdered the Beijing Opera, and wouldn't you know it, the "revolutionary opera" mounted in its place was a pathetic imitation of stale, melodramatic western operatic forms, utterly drained of any Chinese cultural elements the Beijing Opera had. Don't take my word for it -- see Beijing Opera and then check out "taking tiger mountain by strategy" and you'll see there is simply no comparison. The former is great entertainment, colorful and aimed to please. The latter is monotone, and in spite of the talented actors performing in it, the westernization of Chinese theatre is an artistic and cultural disaster. And I find it particularly heartening that in times of despotism, Shakespeare has been used frequently to get around the authorities and hold real protests against the regime. Andy White Urbana, IL ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 10:26:31 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0948 Re: Last Lines of Lear; Comic Cleopatras Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0948. Saturday, 14 December 1996. (1) From: Jeff Myers Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 20:48:37 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 7.0941 Re: Last Lines of Lear (2) From: John Velz Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 18:00:21 +0200 Subj: Cleopatra as comedy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 20:48:37 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 7.0941 Re: Last Lines of Lear Neither Edgar nor Albany would suffer as much as Lear because they both delude themselves with the naive Christian (proto-Christian, in this case?) belief in a providential justice. _Lear_ might be read as an attempt by Shakespeare to let his audience experience vicariously a tragedy that their Christian ideology denies them by isolating them from the finality of death and thereby making them less fully human. Just a thought. As for who says the lines, I prefer Edgar because he has been a more prominent spokesman for the new ideology. Jeff Myers (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 18:00:21 +0200 Subject: Cleopatra as comedy Jimmy Jung asks about Cleopatras played for laughs. This isn't exactly an instance, but the actress who had been great as Viola on stage and is truly a comedy actress, Jane Lapotaire, was cast as Cleopatra in the PBS film. Simply dreadful. What sticks in the memory is the endless weeping she engaged in at Antony's death. I yearned to offer her a box of kleenex. When I got my ticket a day or two ago there were only singles avalable and precious few of them. Thanks for the tip about *Cymbeline*. John Velz ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 10:30:17 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0949 Q: Kisses, Conclusions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0949. Saturday, 14 December 1996. From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 13 Dec 1996 12:43:22 -0500 Subject: Memory Blank Question (Kisses, Conclusions) Here's a stupid question: a for the day for the Shaksperian who can answer it quickest (backchannel or not)----which play, and which character, says the line about "Kisses being like conclusions"? I thought it was Touchstone, but it's not....thanks for your help, Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 09:47:48 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0950 Re: Kisses, Conclusions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0950. Sunday, 15 December 1996. (1) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Saturday, 14 Dec 1996 10:48:20 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0949 Q: Kisses, Conclusions (2) From: John Ford Date: Saturday, 14 Dec 1996 16:17:06 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0949 Q: Kisses, Conclusions (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 14 Dec 1996 18:00:53 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0949 Q: Kisses, Conclusions (4) From: A.E.B. Coldiron Date: Saturday, 14 Dec 1996 21:17:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0949 Q: Kisses, Conclusions (5) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Sunday, 15 Dec 1996 03:10:53 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0949 Q: Kisses, Conclusions (6) From: Holger Klein Date: Sunday, 15 Dec 1996 14:40:46 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0949 Q: Kisses, Conclusions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Saturday, 14 Dec 1996 10:48:20 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0949 Q: Kisses, Conclusions For Chris Stoffolino, Do you mean this passage from Twelfth Night, 5.1?-- Clown: Marry, sir, they praise me and make an ass of me; now my foes tell me plainly I am an ass: so that by my foes, sir I profit in the knowledge of myself, and by my friends, I am abused: so that, conclusions to be as kisses, if your four negatives make your two affirmatives why then, the worse for my friends and the better for my foes. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Ford Date: Saturday, 14 Dec 1996 16:17:06 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0949 Q: Kisses, Conclusions To Cris Stroffolino, I suppose by now you're the better for all your foes and friends who have sent you their answers--and that by now you know, as well as any man in SHAKSPERIA, that you're looking for Feste. But that's all one. Cheers, John Ford (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 14 Dec 1996 18:00:53 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0949 Q: Kisses, Conclusions How about "conclusions to be as kisses" (TN 5.1.20)? Yours, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: A.E.B. Coldiron Date: Saturday, 14 Dec 1996 21:17:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0949 Q: Kisses, Conclusions Twelfth Night's Clown Feste, at V.1.21 or so. Too late for an "A"? A. Coldiron Visiting Scholar, Johns Hopkins University Assistant Professor, Towson State University (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Sunday, 15 Dec 1996 03:10:53 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0949 Q: Kisses, Conclusions Thanks to all who backchanneled me with the proper answer to my question and/or quiz ---there was no single winner--everyone agreed that it was Ghandi I mean Feste in act 5. Now, I'd like to turn the informational question into a more speculative register. Why do you (anyone) think Feste would make the link between "conclusions" and "kisses"? Especially in a play with such an interest in "conclusion"--or is it just a rhetorical figure that should not be taken seriously on the thematic level? Or does it complicate the "journeys end in lovers meeting"? Just curious. Thanks, Chris Stroffolino (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Holger Klein Date: Sunday, 15 Dec 1996 14:40:46 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0949 Q: Kisses, Conclusions Clown=Feste to the Duke in TN 5.1.ca. 21 (Harvard Concordance): "so that, conclusions to be as kisses, if your four negatives make your two affirmatives ...." Ask me another, this is too easy. And good luck! Yours sincerely, Holger Klein (Salzburg University) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 09:54:16 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0951 Re: Politics and Ossified Art Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0951. Sunday, 15 December 1996. (1) From: Ben Schneider Date: Saturday, 14 Dec 1996 14:43:38 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0934 Re: Politics (2) From: Mason West Date: Saturday, 14 Dec 1996 15:19:29 -0200 Subj: Ossified Art (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Schneider Date: Saturday, 14 Dec 1996 14:43:38 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0934 Re: Politics The most important document I have recently read on the subject of mixing politics and literature is Frank Lentricchia's recent contribution to the magazine *Lingua Franca*. Once the "Dirty Harry" of literary theory," he has stopped teaching graduate students at Duke and retreated to the undergraduate classroom where he can share his love of the books themselves. He now thinks it is the height of arrogance for English teachers to use their classrooms to teach politics and sociology when there are whole departments assigned to that task. It's as if Robespierre had suddenly revealed that he was a nobleman, repudiated the French Revolution, and assumed his true nature. Yours ever BEN SCHNEIDER (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mason West Date: Saturday, 14 Dec 1996 15:19:29 -0200 Subject: Ossified Art Andy White's comment -- And I find it particularly heartening that in times of despotism, Shakespeare has been used frequently to get around the authorities and hold real protests against the regime. -- struck me, not only because I too find it heartening that art I like so much might also have such vital practical use, but also because it sheds light upon things I learned in the course of an old debate over whether The Merchant of Venice is inherently anti-Jewish. Shakespeare's intentions in Merchant are at least debatable, and if one views Shakespeare's plays as a whole, there is ample evidence that the bard found the humanity in his characters despite their color and creed. If Merchant is ambiguous, it could well be because Jews were banished from Elizabethan England and it required well-written soft-spoken words to breach the despotism of the time. I realize that Andy White's point addressed how modern performances can address contemporary injustices, but might Shakespeare have had such plans in mind when he wrote Merchant or even, say, the Bollingbroke cycle? --- Mason West www.pobox.com/~mason ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 09:36:06 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0952 Re: Last Lines of Lear Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0952. Tuesday, 17 December 1996. (1) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Sunday, 15 Dec 96 09:36:15 EST Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 12 Dec 1996 to 13 Dec 1996 (2) From: Porter Jamison Date: Sunday, 15 Dec 1996 07:55:22 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0948 Re: Last Lines of Lear (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Sunday, 15 Dec 96 09:36:15 EST Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 12 Dec 1996 to 13 Dec 1996 Last Lines in LEAR: When weighing the alternative appeals of who gets to say the last speech in LEAR, it may help if you look at all the other speech-prefixes that bounce from one character to another, particularly in the final scene. As with the other "multiple-text" plays, whoever was doing the multiplying performed patterned and dramaatically potent series of changes. (Shakespeare's Revision of KL [1980]) Any individual textual alternative may be talked about in isolation, of course, but they take on greater "authority" (dare I say it?) when seen in their larger contexts. As ever, Steve UrQuartowitz, City College of New York (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Porter Jamison Date: Sunday, 15 Dec 1996 07:55:22 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0948 Re: Last Lines of Lear I once read that Albany was assigned the lines by some editors because he was the character onstage with the highest rank-- so many of Shakespeare's plays, and all of the other tragedies (as per my memory anyway) follow this general convention. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 09:41:25 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0953 Re: Kisses, Conclusions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0953. Tuesday, 17 December 1996. (1) From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Sunday, 15 Dec 1996 10:40:32 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0949 Q: Kisses, Conclusions (2) From: Billy Houck Date: Monday, 16 Dec 1996 12:33:30 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0950 Re: Kisses, Conclusions (3) From: Mark Lawhorn Date: Monday, 16 Dec 1996 16:25:30 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0949 Q: Kisses, Conclusions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Sunday, 15 Dec 1996 10:40:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0949 Q: Kisses, Conclusions To Chris Stroffolino: Feste, at *TN* 5.1.18, says, "Marry, sir, they praise me, and make an ass of me. Now my foes tell me plainly I am an ass; so that by my foes, sir, I profit in the knowledge of myself, and by my friends I am abus'd; so that, conclusions to be as kisses, if your four negatives make your two affirmatives, why then the worse for my friends and the better for my foes." Evelyn Gajowski (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Monday, 16 Dec 1996 12:33:30 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0950 Re: Kisses, Conclusions If you're unclear about the connection between kisses and conclusions, may I recommend you put your textbooks down and go get yourself some kissin' From: Billy Houck (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Lawhorn Date: Monday, 16 Dec 1996 16:25:30 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0949 Q: Kisses, Conclusions Feste says, "conclusions to be as kisses." TN 5.1.(18, 20 or so depending on which edition you have). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 09:43:21 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0954 Editing Conference Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0954. Tuesday, 17 December 1996. From: Andrew Murphy Date: Sunday, 15 Dec 1996 22:13:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Editing Conference Please cross-post as appropriate and please excuse multiple postings. Can I just remind anyone interested in participating in the 'Future(s) of Editing' session at the ESSE 4 conference in Debrecen, Hungary in September that the closing date for receipt of abstracts in 31 January 1997. Proposals should relate to any issues in contemporary editorial thinking (eg, the sociology of texts; revisionism; the electronic text; editing and poststructuralism; gender and editing) and can treat of texts from any period. Proposals should be sent to the address indicated below. Please feel free to contact me if you require further details or have any queries. Dr. Andrew Murphy English Department University of Hertfordshire Watford Campus Aldenham Watford Herts AL1 3BD UK Email: litradm@herts.ac.uk Phone: +44 (0) 1727 864117 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 09:47:12 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0955 Re: Lori Berenson; Politics and Ossified Art Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0955. Tuesday, 17 December 1996. (1) From: Kezia Sproat Date: Sunday, 15 Dec 1996 18:13:47 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0909 Re: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* (2) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Sunday, 15 Dec 1996 18:56:28 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0951 Re: Politics and Ossified Art (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kezia Sproat Date: Sunday, 15 Dec 1996 18:13:47 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0909 Re: Trevor Nunn's *Twelfth Night* In the context of our list's conflict between Marxists and non-Marxists, and seeing Bernice Kliman's response to the Nunn 12N, and among a group who know Lear and tragedy, I am impelled to note a young American woman, who I understand is a friend of Bernice's, who may have been, as I was years ago, sympathetic to Marxist ideas, and is perhaps for that reason (but there's little reason at all) at this moment freezing and starving slowly in an unheated prison on top of a mountain in Peru. As a mother of two daughters, I beg Marxists, capitalists, men, students, all, on behalf of Lori Berenson's mother, whom I don't know at all but (if the Associated Press report recently published in the Columbus Dispatch is true) who was allowed only one-half hour in one year to visit, and then could only see her child through two dirty curtains. Bernice Kliman: How can we help now? Kezia Sproat (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Sunday, 15 Dec 1996 18:56:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0951 Re: Politics and Ossified Art Mason West asks: >I realize that Andy White's point addressed how modern performances can address >contemporary injustices, but might Shakespeare have had such plans in mind when >he wrote Merchant or even, say, the Bollingbroke cycle? The more I read his work, the more I am convinced that he spent a great deal of his time taking contemporary issues head-on. Hamlet for me is a case in point, since so many of the Dane's traits (in contrast to the original legend) match up with those of his recently beheaded advocate, the Earl of Essex. It seems to me a rather interesting attempt to mourn the passing of a man who was so admired by so many, and yet who had such deep flaws that it was almost impossible in the end for him to overcome them -- Melancholy being one of Essex' biggest problems ... As for Merchant, there is the distinct possibility that he wished to raise the issue of anti-semitism in England (hence he puts it in Venice -- 'in the most choice Italian' as Hamlet might say) or in general. When the Stratford festival staged it this year, they placed it in the modern equivalent of Renaissance Venice, videlicit Fascist Italy of the 1930's. The hatred of Jews was universal, even among those whom one would normally identify as romantic heroes and heroines. If you refuse to edit out certain sequences, include all the ugliness of the trial and then go straight to Act 5, there is an almost Brechtian effect on the audience. You want to be happy for the young couples, but the knowledge of their inner ugliness makes it almost impossible. Not that you sympathise entirely with Shylock either. He's an extremely bitter man from the start, and at least initially a part of you can't blame Jessica for running away. If this is a comedy in the ha-ha sense, I don't get it. If it's a comedy in the 'at least they get married' sense, then I buy it. Andy White Urbana, IL ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 09:49:11 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0956 Teaching Positions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0956. Tuesday, 17 December 1996. From: Tien-en Kao Date: Monday, 16 Dec 1996 13:08:15 +0800 Subject: Teaching Positions Open Please post the following job announcement about English teaching opportunities in Taiwan: National Taiwan University Department of Foreign Languages & Literatures Teaching Positions Available The Department has two teaching positions open beginning with 1997-98 academic year. The applicant should hold a Ph.D. degree in English or related fields with specialization in either of the following areas: A. English Literature of the Medieval or Renaissance Period B. 20th-century English or American Literature Teaching experience at graduate level will be preferred. Appointment will be offered at the level of associate professorship or full professorship, depending on the appointee's qualifications and teaching experience. Initial appointment will be made on a one-year, renewable basis, starting from 1 August 1997. The current starting salaries per annum for associate professor ca. US$33654.00, and full professor ca. US$41134.00; salary will be paid in Taiwanese currency. All appointees and their dependents (spouses and children under 18) will be covered by our national health care plan. No housing is provided. The minimum teaching load required of full-time faculty is nine hours per week (p;us some in the evening division). Duties will include student advising, teaching basic training courses such as composition and conversation, and other courses as assigned. Applicants should submit: (1) a curriculum vitae; (2) a copy of the Ph.D. diploma; (3) a copy of transcripts of graduate studies; (4) three letters of recommendation; and (5) proof of past/current employment. The applicants who pass the preliminary review will be asked to send four copies of their academic works published within the last three years or which have been accepted for publication. Applications materials should reach th Chair at the following address by 1 February 1997: Professor Tien-en Kao, Chairman Dept. of Foreign Languages & Literatures National Taiwan University 1 Roosevelt Road, Sec. 4 Taipei, Taiwan 106, R.O.C. Tel/Fax: 886-2-363-9395 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 09:54:17 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0957 Qs: Conferences and Festivals; Book Ages Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0957. Tuesday, 17 December 1996. (1) From: Bruce Fenton Date: Monday, 16 Dec 1996 07:36:48 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK Ohio Conference (2) From: Matthew Bibb Date: Monday, 16 Dec 96 15:28:18 PST Subj: Book Ages (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Fenton Date: Monday, 16 Dec 1996 07:36:48 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK Ohio Conference Recently, I saw some discussion about a Shakespeare conference in Ohio (Columbus I believe). Could someone please post the details- what will it be like. I am looking for a festival of some sort to attend- with lots of plays - any other ideas? Thank you! Bruce Fenton (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Bibb Date: Monday, 16 Dec 96 15:28:18 PST Subject: Book Ages Dear SHAKSPERians: A friend of mine recently showed me a two volume Shakespeare collection that belonged to her great-grandmother. She has not been able to locate a date for the books and I'm hoping someone on the list can help. The books are called "Knight's Imperial Shakspere" with notes by Charles Knight, and they were published in London by Virtue & Co., Limited, 294, City Road. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Matt Bibb UCLA Shakespeare Reading and Performance Group ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 09:56:00 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0958 Re: Tone of "Madam" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0958. Tuesday, 17 December 1996. From: Jesus Cora Date: Monday, 16 Dec 1996 15:12:36 UTC+0100 Subject: SHK 7.0936 Q: Tone of "Madam" Dear Ron Dwelle, Certainly the tone is ironic, but I would not say that the use of Madam is completeley ironical here. The force of the irony is in *seems*, whereas *Madam* is apparently devoid of irony. As to the use of *Madam* when addres- sing to one's mother, think that Hamlet is not only adressing his mother, but also the Queen of Denmark and he must show respect before the rest of the court. No "sneering condescension" to me. J. Cora. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 10:34:13 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0959 Shakespeare Magazine Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0959. Thursday, 19 December 1996. From: Michael C LoMonico Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996 11:06:24 EST Subject: Shakespeare Magazine Shakespeare magazine wants to know: Now that Shakespeare films are popping up everywhere, what's your dream scheme? What Shakespearean play do you most want to see made into a film? Name the play, the director, and principal actors. Limit answers to 50 words or less. Post responses to the listserv or send them to: editors@shakeseparemag.com. Look for the results in the Winter issue of Shakespeare magazine. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 10:43:50 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0960 Re: Knight's Imperial Shakspere Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0960. Thursday, 19 December 1996. (1) From: Fran Teague Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 96 14:24:11 EST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0957 Q: Book Ages (2) From: Judy Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996 20:16:44 -0400 (AST) Subj: Knight's Imperial Shakspere (3) From: Michael A. Norman Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996 19:19:18 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0957 Qs: Book Ages (4) From: Patricia E. Gallagher Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996 19:23:51 -0800 Subj: Re: Book Ages (5) From: Peter L. Groves Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 12:33:25 GMT+1000 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0957 Qs: Book Ages (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 96 14:24:11 EST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0957 Q: Book Ages No doubt John Velz will also write in to tell Mr. Bibb that _One Touch of Shakespeare: The Letters of Joseph Crosby_, which he and I edited, has extensive discussion of Knight's Imperial edition of Shakespeare's _Works_. Our book was published by the Folger in 1986 and I expect a copy is in the UCLA library. Fran Teague (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judy Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996 20:16:44 -0400 (AST) Subject: Knight's Imperial Shakspere Knight's Imperial Shakspere was published in London and New York (the latter by Virtue and Yorston) in 1875-76. There is an interesting monograph by John C. Yorston, *An essay on Charles Knight's Imperial Shakspere, embracing biographical sketches of author, editor, artists, engravers etc....* Printed exclusively for private circulation, 1876. It is rare, but is available at the Folger. Possibly the Huntington has it? The New York Public Library copy has gone missing. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael A. Norman Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996 19:19:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0957 Qs: Book Ages Matt, I did a little searching. I hope this helps you. I found the catalog records at the University of California online catalog. AUTHOR Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616 TITLE Works. 1873 The works of Shakspere. Ed. by Charles Knight; with illustration on steel from pictures by C.W. Cope, R.A., E.M. Ward, R.A., C.R. Leslie, R.A. [and others] EDITION Imperial edition. IMPRINT London, Virtue; New York, Patterson and Neilson, [1873-76] DESC. 2 v. fronts. (ports.) plates. 39 cm. NOTE Added title-pages, engraved, with vignettes. Issued in 50 parts to subscribers only. English ADD AUTHOR Knight, Charles, 1791-1873 AUTHOR Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616 TITLE Works. 1881 The works of Shakspere. Ed. by Charles Knight; with illustration on steel from pictures by C.W. Cope, R.A., E.M. Ward, R.A., C.R. Leslie, R.A. [and others] EDITION Imperial edition. IMPRINT New York : Virtue and Vorston, [1881] DESC. 2 v. fronts. (ports.) plates. 39 cm. NOTE Added title-pages, engraved, with vignettes. English ADD AUTHOR Knight, Charles, 1791-1873 These two examples may not be what you want. Charles Knight edited many different works of Shakespeare's plays. Hopefully, someone else on the list can give you more information on Knight or the above works. Good luck. Michael Norman (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia E. Gallagher Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996 19:23:51 -0800 Subject: Re: Book Ages According to OCLC, there was a two volume set of Shakespeare's "Works", published by Virtue in London, between 1873 and 1876. It was edited by Charles Knight and was referred to as the "Imperial Edition." I should add that several "Imperial editions, " with different numbers of volumes and edited by Charles Knight, were published around the same period of time. If you ask your l librarian to do a search for you (on either OCLC or RLIN), you should get a fair estimate of the dates and publishers of those texts. Patricia Gallagher hwest@ix.netcom.com (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L. Groves Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 12:33:25 GMT+1000 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0957 Qs: Book Ages > "Knight's Imperial Shakspere" with notes by Charles Knight, and they were > published in London by Virtue & Co., Limited, 294, City Road. Any help you can > provide would be greatly appreciated. Knight's Shakespeare was first published (8 vols) 1838-43; your two-volume edn must therefore be later. Knight is rather interesting in that he is one of the very few editors of Shakespeare who doesn't relinieate his copy-text in order to "regularize" the metre--he is the only editor since Rowe to print the opening of *Mac* 2.2 more or less as F has it. Peter Groves Department of English Monash University Melbourne ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 10:49:49 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0961 Re: Merchant of Venice and Anti-Semitism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0961. Thursday, 19 December 1996. (1) From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996 14:20:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0955 Re: Merchant of Venice (2) From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Wednesday, 18 Dec 1996 12:10:52 PST Subj: SHK 7.0955 Re: Politics and Ossified Art (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996 14:20:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0955 Re: Merchant of Venice Two responses to the argument that *Merchant of Venice* expresses Shakespeare's opposition to anti-semitism: 1. How do we explain the popularity of the play in Nazi Germany? 2. With friends like this, who needs enemies? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Wednesday, 18 Dec 1996 12:10:52 PST Subject: SHK 7.0955 Re: Politics and Ossified Art ANDY WHITE writes: "As for Merchant, there is the distinct possibility that he wished to raise the issue of anti-semitism in England (hence he puts it in Venice -- 'in the most choice Italian' as Hamlet might say) or in general. When the Stratford festival staged it this year, they placed it in the modern equivalent of Renaissance Venice, videlicit Fascist Italy of the 1930's. The hatred of Jews was universal, even among those whom one would normally identify as romantic heroes and heroines. If you refuse to edit out certain sequences, include all the ugliness of the trial and then go straight to Act 5, there is an almost Brechtian effect on the audience. You want to be happy for the young couples, but the knowledge of their inner ugliness makes it almost impossible. "Not that you sympathise entirely with Shylock either. He's an extremely bitter man from the start, and at least initially a part of you can't blame Jessica for running away. If this is a comedy in the ha-ha sense, I don't get it. If it's a comedy in the 'at least they get married' sense, then I buy it." White has been a voice of common (and good) sense in the debate on politics, but not here, in my opinion. Whatever may be the merits of a contemporary production of Merchant set in Fascist Italy, it is preposterous to draw conclusions about Shakespeare's intent from one's reactions to such a production. There is a good deal of anti-semitism in Merchant, some of which Shakespeare and at least some members of his audience may have understood to be excessive. But on no reasonable view can anti- Semitism be understood as having anything like the resonance and associations that it has to a twentieth century audience, especially when that resonance and those associations are heightened by setting the play in Fascist Italy. The primary ugliness in the trial is that of Shylock. What is wrong with Shylock is not that he is "extremely bitter," but that as Portia demonstrates, he is guilty of attempted murder. The dilemma underlying the trial is the tension between the urgency for Venice of maintaining the principle of freedom of contract within the commercial law, and of preventing the abuse of that principle by Shylock. Portia happily and justly resolves that tension by applying the commercial and criminal laws to their own spheres. The celebration in Act V is an appropriate sequel to this happy resolution. In addition, the incident of the rings in Act V drives home Portia's point, demonstrated also in the trial, of the need to take legal obligations seriously. Best, Dan Lowenstein UCLA Law School ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 10:54:27 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0962 Re: Ohio Shakespeare Conference and Festivals Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0962. Thursday, 19 December 1996. (1) From: Jennifer Swartz Date: Wednesday, 18 Dec 1996 00:19:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Ohio Shakespeare Conference (2) From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 18 Dec 1996 14:16 ET Subj: SHK 7.0957 Qs: Conferences and (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jennifer Swartz Date: Wednesday, 18 Dec 1996 00:19:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ohio Shakespeare Conference Just read the posting from Bruce Fenton requesting information on the Ohio Shakespeare Conference. It's at Ohio State from May 16-18, 1997 and, since I already deleted the posting, I have limited extra information to offer. However, the posting can be found at http://www.english.upenn.edu/CFP. Hope this helps-- J. Swartz Kent State (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 18 Dec 1996 14:16 ET Subject: SHK 7.0957 Qs: Conferences and Bruce Fenton asks about the Ohio Shakespeare Conference. It will meet in Columbus 16-18 May; the topic is "Textual Practice and Textual Labor: Shakespeare and his Contemporaries," and the plenary speakers will be Stephen Orgel, Leah Marcus, Jeff Masten, and Douglas Bruster. The folks at Ohio State are accepting papers and abstacts until 20 December: send them to Luke Wilson or Chris Highley. OSC is always lively, and intimate enough for lots of face-to-face exchanges around the coffee urn or in the bar. As for festivals, you get the most Shakespeare at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland. The Stratford Shakespeare Festivel maintains its high quality, but belies its name by devoting only about a third of its program to its namesake's work. I hear good reports about the Alabama Shakespeare Festival in Montgomery. Festively, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 14:14:00 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0963 Lori Berenson Update Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0963. Thursday, 19 December 1996. From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996 10:31:43 -0500 Subject: Lori Berenson Update Rhoda and Mark Berenson Information about Lori can be found on the Web at http://www.tiac.net/users/salem/lori_berenson/ VISIT TO LORI ON DECEMBER 7TH We have just returned from visiting Lori at Yanamayo Prison in Peru. This was our first visit after not seeing or speaking with her for a year and the experience is upsetting. The visit lasted but 30 minutes. We were separated by two screens which allowed us to see each other but not touch. It was very cold there, even though summer is but two weeks away. As had been reported, Lori suffers circulation problems which have resulted in swollen, deformed fingers, dizzy spells, digestive difficulties resulting in weight loss, and chronic sore throat and laryngitis. Although her mind is clear and her spirit remains strong, we noticed definite signs of anxiety which we attribute to the continuous psychological harassment Lori faces. In addition, the 30-minute limitation made the visit very tense. Nevertheless, Lori made a point of asking us to thank all of you for your support for her and for us. Lori continued to profess her innocence and her desire for a fair trial in an open Peruvian court to clear her name and bolster human rights in Peru. However, if the Peruvian government is not inclined to provide such due process, Lori believes she should be given a pardon. We worry that continued incarceration will result in permanent health damage. Although suggestions have been made that Lori utilize the existing treaty between the two countries to transfer to a U.S. prison, that is not a viable option since it would automatically result in a long prison term here without any rights to challenge the lack of due process in Peru. CONGRESSMAN BILL RICHARDSON OFFERS CONTINUED HELP In August, Representative Bill Richardson of New Mexico, acting as a special envoy of President Clinton, traveled to Lima and met with Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori and other top governmental officials. A discussion of Lori's case was one of several items on his agenda. Both governments have taken the position that Lori's case is truly a thorn in the side of Peruvian and American relations. On December 12th, in an interview in the Washington Post, Representative Richardson said that "he hopes he won't have to curb his activities if he's named to a top administrative post. Future assignments include Lori Berenson, a New Yorker held in Peru." On December 13th, Representative Richardson was nominated to become the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. We are very pleased that Representative Richardson will continue to help. Nevertheless, given Lori's deteriorating health, we must apply all means of pressure immediately. IMMEDIATE CALLS FOR ACTION 1. Given the recent media coverage of our visit, it is important to keep Lori's story alive. If any of you have contacts in the media or wish to write Op-Ed articles, please let us know. 2. If you have not yet written to President Clinton, please do so now to emphasize the urgency for his intervention, given Lori's deteriorating health. 3. We have been told that Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato who has earned a reputation for his tenacity and strength could impress on Peru the need for an immediate resolution to Lori's situation. Please contact Senator D'Amato immediately by phone at 1-800-972-3524 or at 1-202-224-6542 or by mail (A sample letter follows). SAMPLE LETTER ------------------------------ Date: The Honorable Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato United States Senate 520 Senate Hart Building Washington, D.C. 20510. Dear Senator D'Amato: The parents of your constituent Lori Berenson have just returned from visiting her in the harsh Yanamayo prison in Puno, Peru, following a one-year moratorium on visits. Ms. Berenson has spent the past eleven months under a "special regimen" designed to promote a slow death. The temperature indoors, where she spends 23.5 hours per day in a small, concrete cell, is always below 40 degrees Fahrenheit and reaches as low as 0 degrees. There is no heat or running water. Food and water (for drinking and washing) are insufficient. Medical services are vastly inadequate. Ms. Berenson suffers from altitude-related problems -- swollen, purple, and cut fingers along with circulatory and digestive problems and dizzy spells. In addition, she suffers from chronic sore throat and laryngitis. In June, Ms. Berenson wrote a letter to the U.S. Congress claiming her innocence and asking for help in obtaining a fair trial in a civilian court. To date, Peru has ignored all U.S. government requests for such a trial, including those made by yourself and your colleagues. Knowing the reputation you have earned for your tenacity and your concern for the well being of your constituents, and, given Ms. Berenson's deteriorating physical condition, I urge you to make strong appeal to quickly resolve her situation. Sincerely, Name: Address: ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 14:27:17 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0964 Qs: Branagh *Hamlet*; Q1 *Hamlet*; Falstaff's Page Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0964. Thursday, 19 December 1996. (1) From: Lawrence Manley Date: Wednesday, 18 Dec 1996 10:28:01 -0500 (EST) Subj: [Q: Branagh *Hamlet*] (2) From: Donald Smith Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996 16:43:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: Oedipal Hamlet,....differences between Q&F? (3) From: Mark Lawhorn Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996 11:03:54 -1000 Subj: Query re Falstaff's Page (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lawrence Manley Date: Wednesday, 18 Dec 1996 10:28:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Q: Branagh *Hamlet*] Is there any truth to a report I just heard (second hand) that there is a plan to release Kenneth Branagh's new _Hamlet_ in two versions -- a four-hour version to play in major cities and "art houses" and a two-hour version to play in the mass-market theaters? If so, would this plan be a latter-day instance of the scenario imagined by the (old) New Bibliographers, in which original London productions were cut (and otherwise altered) for provincial performance? Lawrence Manley Yale University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Smith Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996 16:43:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Oedipal Hamlet,....differences between Q&F? Being a novice, I ask readers to please forgive the vague nature of this question.... I was recently told that in Q1 of Hamlet, after the confrontation twixt Hamlet and his mother in her chamber, they reconcile their differences and conspire against Claudius. Is this correct? What is the change in the F edition attributed to? Is there a copy of Q1 on the internet? Thanks Don Smith (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Lawhorn Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996 11:03:54 -1000 Subject: Query re Falstaff's Page I would appreciate leads on articles that deal with Falstaff's page (primarily in 2 Henry IV and Henry V). My concerns include the precarious socioeconomic position the character occupies, societal anxiety regarding youth and vagrancy, and ways the character may be a variation on the conscience stricken prodigal motif. I would also appreciate list members' comments on the boy's accompaniment of Falstaff to the Fleet at the end of 2 Henry IV and on the boy's position as masterless boy at Falstaff's death. It seems significant that the service of this youth is a commodity originating from Prince Hal, one that suggests the dangerous exchanges involving youth and vice to which the prince calls a halt (for himself anyway). The boy almost seems a symbolic surrogate for the Prince. I had hopes that William Carroll's new book "Fat King, Lean Beggar" would produce some leads, but alas, as helpful as it is in many ways, the page in question doesn't come in for much play. Mark H. Lawhorn lawhorn@hawaii.edu English Dept. UH Manoa ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 14:35:42 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0965 Re: Kisses, Conclusions; Last Lines; Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0965. Thursday, 19 December 1996. (1) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996 11:51:07 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0953 Re: Kisses, Conclusions (2) From: Louis C. Swilley Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996 08:26:12 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0952 Re: Last Lines of Lear (3) From: John V Robinson Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 01:05:56 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0951 Re: Politics and Ossified Art (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996 11:51:07 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0953 Re: Kisses, Conclusions Iago: They met so near with their lips that their breaths embrac'd together. When these mutualies so marshall the way, hard at hand comes the master and main exercise, th'incorporate conclusion! (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C. Swilley Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996 08:26:12 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0952 Re: Last Lines of Lear May we approach the problem *formally* rather than *historically*? To whom *should* these last lines be assigned? And, granting only the argument of the play, *why*? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John V Robinson Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 01:05:56 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0951 Re: Politics and Ossified Art << The most important document I have recently read on the subject of mixing politics and literature is Frank Lentricchia's recent contribution to the magazine *Lingua Franca*. Once the "Dirty Harry" of literary theory," he has stopped teaching graduate students at Duke and retreated to the undergraduate classroom where he can share his love of the books themselves. He now thinks it is the height of arrogance for English teachers to use their classrooms to teach politics and sociology when there are whole departments assigned to that task. It's as if Robespierre had suddenly revealed that he was a nobleman, repudiated the French Revolution, and assumed his true nature.>> Yes but the real question that faces Mr. Lentricchia is one Claudius contemplates in Hamlet, namely: can you renounce the crime and keep the office? Perhaps instead of lamenting the sorry state of pomo literary affairs he should get to work cleaning up the mess he helped make.========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 09:24:53 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0967 Re: Film Suggestions for Shakespeare Magazine Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0967. Monday, 23 December 1996. (1) From: Anders H Klitgaard Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 15:28:03 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0959 Shakespeare Magazine (2) From: Charles Ross Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 11:49:19 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0959 Shakespeare Magazine (3) From: Douglas Fossek Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 13:24:53 -0800 Subj: SHK 7.0959 Shakespeare Magazine -Reply (4) From: Gilad Shapira Date: Friday, 20 Dec 96 23:55:40 PST Subj: RE: SHK 7.0959 Shakespeare Magazine (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anders H Klitgaard Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 15:28:03 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0959 Shakespeare Magazine The plays which it would be most helpful to see on the screen are the ones which are read with most difficulty, eg Lear and the Tempest. Actors/directors - no preferences... Sincerely Anders H Klitgaard (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Ross Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 11:49:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0959 Shakespeare Magazine How about Love's Labor's Lost with Richard Harris, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Diane Keaton (and no Meryl Streep or Glenn Close). (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Fossek Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 13:24:53 -0800 Subject: SHK 7.0959 Shakespeare Magazine -Reply It's time for The Merchant of Venice directed by and starring Mel Brooks (naturally). (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gilad Shapira Date: Friday, 20 Dec 96 23:55:40 PST Subject: RE: SHK 7.0959 Shakespeare Magazine I'll be glad to see Titus Andronicus as a film. This play is very interesting in regard to the problem of the revenge plays and to the question of Hamlet as a revenge play. Gilad Shapira ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 09:39:08 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0968 Re: Merchant of Venice and Anti-Semitism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0968. Monday, 23 December 1996. (1) From: Robert Dennis Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 96 14:46:36 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0961 Re: Merchant of Venice and Anti-Semitism (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 15:53:05 -0500 Subj: 'Incorrect' Bard is barred from euro banknotes (3) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 15:30:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Merchant of Venice and Anti-Semitism (4) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 18:16:35 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0961 Re: Merchant of Venice and Anti-Semitism (5) From: Jacob Goldberg Date: Friday, 20 Dec 1996 00:53:15 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0961 Re: Merchant of Venice and Anti-Semitism (6) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 21 Dec 1996 18:45:12 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0961 Re: Merchant of Venice and Anti-Semitism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Dennis Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 96 14:46:36 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0961 Re: Merchant of Venice and Anti-Semitism Phyllis Rackin wrote: >Two responses to the argument that *Merchant of Venice* >expresses Shakespeare's opposition to anti-semitism: > 1. How do we explain the popularity of the play in Nazi Germany? > 2. With friends like this, who needs enemies? Well, the Nazis liked beer, pretzels, and girls, too. Does this make beer, pretzels, and girls anti-semite? I think the portrayal of Shylock is very sensitive to the question of anti-anything, not simply anti-semitism. The play could be a model of anti-prejudice. In my reading the play condemns both the anti-semitism of the father AND the sharp-trading reverse-prejudice of Shylock. Contemporary social and political dialogue would be much more productive if everyone today understood the nature of their own reverse-prejudice attitudes. I really liked the Shylock treatment by Mr. Shakespeare. It seems to me we should consider whether Shylock is Jewish only insofar as he is "other" to the Elizabethans. I mean, really, Shakespeare couldn't very well portray the _Tudors_, the Queen's own relatives and ancestors, as getting their pound of flesh from those who were indebted to them. He had to make it an "other" who did such sharp trading. We see the same indirect portrayals against stereotype in fictional material of many countries and many ages. Writers are always endangered when criticizing the status quo or the establishment. Although the U.S. is especially open in allowing selected aspects of self-criticism, consider the difficulties with stereotypes of the last 50 years: to portray a professional woman; a gay person; a black person; and yes, even in America, a Jew, without stereotypical flaws and characteristics. Consider contemporarily the difficulty in portraying a white straight male without stereotyping either to either meanness or vapidity. Sincerely, Bob Dennis rdennis@nesdis.noaa.gov (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 15:53:05 -0500 Subject: 'Incorrect' Bard is barred from euro banknotes [Editor's Note: The following was submitted by Bill Godshalk.] By Bruce Johnston in Rome: "Shakespeare and the Jews" SHAKESPEARE was dropped from a starring role on the new euro banknotes because of his alleged anti-Semitism, it is claimed. His portrayal of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice was adduced as evidence, said Dr Guido Crapanzano, a member of the committee which decided on the notes published at last weekend's Dublin summit. Dr Crapanzano, an Italian banker, said that Mozart and Leonardo da Vinci also failed the European test of political correctness. "I would never have thought that the divine Amadeus could have found any opposition," he said in an interview in the Milan newspaper Corriera della Sera. "He was a universal artist. Yet someone jumped up and said, 'What if there was to be an objection to his Masonic music?'" In Leonardo's case "it was feared that the old tale about his homosexuality might be dragged up." "In the end we did a calculation: the banknotes were seven, while the countries were 15. By choosing a personality for each one, we would have put the nose out of joint of the remaining eight countries." Dr Crapanzano said that several architects were among the adjudicators. So it came as no surprise that the specimen banknotes featured a variety of architectural drawings, as well as maps of Europe. But even anonymous devices are not without their dangers, Dr Crapanzano pointed out. "If you look carefully, the notes are full of mistakes," he said. "Russia and Switzerland appear in the outline of Europe - and they have nothing to do with the European Union." At the Royal Mint at Llantrisant yesterday officials had not given up hope of eventually thrusting Shakespeare into the limelight. "We are submitting three banknote designs and a final decision isn't expected until the spring," a spokesman said. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 15:30:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Merchant of Venice and Anti-Semitism Many thanks to the lawyer among us who corrected me. I agree that Merchant should probably not be put down simply as a play dealing with anti-semitism, and that the use of Shylock qua Jew may not have been the main point of the plot. What I should have said is that, naturally enough, the figure of Shylock has taken on rather grand porportions because of our own personal concerns about anti-semitism, and the self-consciousness that results does make us define the play in narrower terms than may have been intended. One aspect of his performance that won praise, when Gielgud closed his famous season at the Queen's in 1938, was that the character of Shylock became more a member of the ensemble, and he allowed Portia, Bassanio and company to take their probably rightful place in the spotlight. This, severl years after he experimented with a bellowing Michael Keen at the Old Vic (when he directed it the first time, I think it was 1932), and found it unsatisfactory. Thanks for the corrections, Andy White Urbana, IL (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 18:16:35 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0961 Re: Merchant of Venice and Anti-Semitism Andy White discusses the "the Stratford festival" production of the play in which "they placed it in the modern equivalent of Renaissance Venice, videlicit Fascist Italy of the 1930's." This is an interesting transposition, on at least two counts. The primary equation doesnt quite work, since Fascist Italy wasnt really such an "equivalent": a struggling, economically stagnant, would-be-colonialist backwater full of tinpot costumed nostalgia does not a major international mercantile and imperial center make. The better equivalent for "the modern era" would surely be New York City, where for so many years Jews ran a substantial percentage of the business without ever being admitted to the country clubs, elite colleges and boardrooms inhabited by Bassanio and Co., even if Bassanio and Co. did business with them. The other significant difference is that Italian Fascists were in fact not especially antisemitic, and most regarded Nazi obsessiveness on this question as an eccentric piece of northern barbarism. In fact Italy consistently refused to deport any Jews, even from Italian-occupied France, until after the collapse of the Fascist government and the German takeover, resulting, paradoxically, in a high survival rate for Italian Jews from the Second World War. Phyllis Rackin's question on the popularity of the play in Nazi Germany is a good one, but another one needs in addition to be asked: "How do we explain the high popularity of the play with Yiddish theater groups in the earlier part of the century if we take it as a whole as an anti-semitic work?" Isnt its antisemitism very intimately bound up with its interest in Shylock's spiritual condition -- a legitimate interest in what can happen to people who suffer too long? (How long is "too long"?) Alas for Shylock, and alas for the playwright that made him, willy nilly, a study in a degradation of suffering he failed to prevent from being in effect identified with an entire religion. Alas for motley, brawling, unregenerate Venice, and for Shakespeare's inability to see through his own contamination by it. But compare it to Torquemada, or Topcliffe, or Essex's treatment of Lopez and one sees important differences, I think. Does our ability to see more clearly (as we think we do on this issue) entitle us to paint what we see with such a broad brush? How proud are we entitled to be of our indignation? Happy holidays, Tom (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacob Goldberg Date: Friday, 20 Dec 1996 00:53:15 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0961 Re: Merchant of Venice and Anti-Semitism Dan Lowenstein writes: The primary ugliness in the trial is that of Shylock. What is wrong with Shylock is not that he is "extremely bitter," but that as Portia demonstrates, he is guilty of attempted murder. The dilemma underlying the trial is the tension between the urgency for Venice of maintaining the principle of freedom of contract within the commercial law, and of preventing the abuse of that principle by Shylock. At the risk of being guilty of joining the lawyer-bashing brigade, I beg to differ. Shylock is not guilty of attempted murder and Portia nowhere demonstrates that he is guilty of attempted murder. She says that he is guilty, but only in the Christian court of Venice does that make him guilty. And that only because he is an alien in Venice! What if he were not an alien, as was the case in the original pound of flesh myth? Would he still be guilty of attempted murder? What if Christian Antonio were the creditor and the Jew Shylock were the debtor and Antonio demanded compliance with the contract under the laws of the Christian court of Venice? Would Antonio have been guilty of attempted murder? Would he even have been accused of it? Portia has already, and repeatedly, said that the contract for the pound of flesh is legal under the laws of Christian Venice even though its enforcement will mean the certain death of Antonio. She has insisted that the Christian court of Venice is bound by the laws of Christian Venice and if Shylock refuses to show mercy, why then Antonio must die. Not once does she suggest that Shylock is abusing the principle of freedom of contract. And he is not abusing this principle in the eyes of the Christian court of the Christian state. Portia knew all the time that the Christian court of Venice was not bound to enforce this contract, not because killing an insolvent debtor offended Christian Venice's laws or morals, but because the creditor was an alien, a Jewish alien. This is the primary ugliness of the trial, a lawyer trick to resolve a profound moral issue. Let us now escape to the fifth act fairyland of Belmont, where there is no ugliness, but only beauty and light. Jacob Goldberg (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 21 Dec 1996 18:45:12 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0961 Re: Merchant of Venice and Anti-Semitism Phyllis Rackin asks regarding Merchant of Venice: >1. How do we explain the popularity of the play in Nazi Germany? Alfred Harbage told his graduate students in the early 60s that the Nazi Germans never allowed the performance of the full script. Shylock's "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech was always cut. (I have no idea where Harbage got this information; I've always wondered, but not enough to spend my time in Germany going through playscripts from the 30s and early 40s.) Harbage went on, of course, to point out that Shylock uses this plea for a common humanity to justify revenge. But we might also notice that Shylock's recurrent criticism of Christian society (e.g., it's use of revenge and slavery) is never directly answered by the Christians. No Christian says, "Hey, we're Christians; we turn the other cheek," or "Slaves? We don't practice that kind of barbarism." His comments on Christian husbands is equally on target, and if Portia were fairer, she'd tell him that she concurs. I'd say that Merchant is just as anti-semitic as Vonnegut's novel Mother Night is. The movie is another story. For Shakespeare and Vonnegut, the true villain is our inhumanity, which has no ethnic or gender boundaries. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 09:47:17 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0969 Re: Branagh *Hamlet Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0969. Monday, 23 December 1996. (1) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 96 16:19:23 CST Subj: SHK 7.0964 Q: Branagh *Hamlet (2) From: Matthew W Mitchell-Shiner Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 18:14:09 -0800 (PST) Subj: Hamlet - 2 versions (3) From: Steve Sohmer Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 17:58:51 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0964 Qs: Branagh *Hamlet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 96 16:19:23 CST Subject: SHK 7.0964 Q: Branagh *Hamlet The information on the Branagh _Hamlet_ website (http://hamlet-movie.com) indicates that they shot two versions, one four hours and one two hours, primarily on the insistence of the producers, who didn't think a mass audience would watch a four hour Shakespeare film. I'm up for all four myself. The website has lots of information, of which I've only sampled a small portion. --Chris Gordon (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew W Mitchell-Shiner Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 18:14:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hamlet - 2 versions Yes, it is true that there will be a four plus hour version and the two and half hour version for those that are faint of heart. (read that in a passing trade paper and heard it on NPR.) (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 17:58:51 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0964 Qs: Branagh *Hamlet* I saw the Branagh *Hamlet* at a DGA screening last Sunday. In an imperfect but generally rewarding film I was particularly struck by episodes of seasick-inducing camera work, bad and jump cuts, draggy walk-and-talks, and terribly long and elaborately choreographed scenes shot "in one." When I enquired, I was told that there were to be two versions of the film: a 260min master version and a 160min general release. Perhaps this accounts for the long version's weaker moments. Steve Sohmer ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 09:52:21 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0970 Re: Knight's Imperial Edition Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0970. Monday, 23 December 1996. (1) From: Matthew Bibb Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 96 16:52:40 PST Subj: Re: Book Ages (2) From: John Velz Date: Saturday, 21 Dec 1996 00:39:31 +0200 Subj: Knight's Imperial Edn. (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Bibb Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 96 16:52:40 PST Subject: Re: Book Ages Thanks to everyone for the help in solving the mystery of Knight's Imperial Shakespeare! I can now sleep easy.... Matt Bibb UCLA Shakespeare Reading and Performance Group (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Saturday, 21 Dec 1996 00:39:31 +0200 Subject: Knight's Imperial Edn. In light of the recent replies to Matthew Bibb's query, esp. the one from my old friend and collaborator, Fran Teague, I am forwarding to all of you my letter to Mr. Bibb of a few days ago. I have made one minor correction in it and revised one sentence to avoid ambiguity. He has written me back that he found the imprint Virtue and Yorston in the book, so his copy is one of the 100,000 I speak of. JWV Dear Matthew Bibb: The edn. you describe is a reprint after mid nineteenth-century of the 1838-43 Imperial Edition pubd. by Charles Knight, the father of the paperback edn. of Shakespeare and a socialist who believed that reading Shakespeare would assist the lower illiterate classes toward literacy. I say "paperback" because the Imperial Edition was published in fascicles, one play per fascicle, and one bought them for small amounts as they came out and then bound them if desired when all 36 fascicles + Introductory material were in hand. The edition led to a revolution in Shakespeare publishing. In the late 1960s, at the request of J.C. Maxwell then editor of *Notes & Queries*, I carefully counted and identified an impressive number of separate editions of KNT1 (as editors call the Imperial Edn.) in the Folger Library collection between 1838 and 1875. It was in the 30s, I think. If it matters to you I can look up the number. Knight produced two other editions after KNT1 that were less elaborate and cheaper; one of these is dated 1844. Later, as he grew too old to do aggressive publishing he eventually sold his copyrights in all his editions to Virtue & Co. of Ln. a distinguished publisher. What you have in hand is either one of Virtue's many reprints of the Imperial or possibly an American piracy of such a reprint. I think the former, but the absence of date might tempt us to think the latter. Virtue eventually linked up with an American publisher, John Yorston of New York. Yorston published a very handsome reprint of the Imperial Edn. in 1875. They projected a sale in the U.S. of some 100,000 copies, a staggering number when you think that America was still a young country with a small population. Your copy would not be from that edn. because the Virtue edn. distributed by Yorston was designated "Virtue and Yorston" to beat the pirates. Copyright was sound in England and in America but not transatlantic. So if the book appeared in N.Y. and London simultaneously, it was copyright in both places, and pirates could be prosecuted. I think the chances are that your rpt. if not a piracy, dates from the 1860s. Hope this helps. John Velz ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 10:02:33 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0971 Re: Festivals; Q1 *Hamlet*; Last Lines of Lear Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0971. Monday, 23 December 1996. (1) From: Ronald Vince Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 14:41:42 -0500 (EST) Subj: Festivals (2) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 23:48:21 -0500 (EST) Subj: Ham & Gertie (3) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Saturday, 21 Dec 96 16:40:53 EST Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 17 Dec 1996 to 19 Dec 1996 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronald Vince Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 14:41:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Festivals Dave Evett mentioned that the the "Stratford Shakespeare Festival" was belying its name by devoting only a third of its productions to Shakespeare. The festival has for several years been known simply as "The Stratford Festival" in recognition, one assumes, of the fact that Dave laments. American musicals appear to be the preferred "draw." Cheers, Ron Vince (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 19 Dec 1996 23:48:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ham & Gertie Here's what I've got from the edition of the 1603 Quarto, edited by Albert Weiner: Queen: Hamlet, I vow by that majesty That knows our thoughts and looks into our hearts I will conceal, consent, and do my best, What strategem soe-er thou shalt devise. This, as opposed to the " .. I have no life to breath" speech in the other editions. This one falls much closer to the Saxo Grammaticus legend, and it makes me think that the original from which Shakespeare worked had a plot and ending much more like the Danish version, in which Hamlet returns one year after his departure from England on the very evening of his wake for an alleged death at sea, and proceeds to get everyone drunk and burns the whole place down, killing his uncle in bed ... his mom, of course, being in on the whole plot before he left, and being silent while he carried it out. Which makes me wonder; if the original "oyster wife" Hamlet from the 1590's was so lousy, was it because it was so faithful to the Grammaticus story, as perhaps interpreted by Belleforest? Andy White Urbana, IL Best wishes to all for the Solstice (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Saturday, 21 Dec 96 16:40:53 EST Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 17 Dec 1996 to 19 Dec 1996 Louis Swilley asks, " granting the argument of the play, who should get the last speech in Lear?" Or something like that question. The question assumes that there is only one argument and one play, "the argument" and "the play." Only idealized, mental fabrications live in such blessed singularities. If you read along through the 1608 version, Albany can be that last speaker. And the world will not end if in your imagined production you hand the speech over the Albany if you're following Q. Won't end if you're following F either. Once again, I invite you to look at the book I wrote in 1980, SHAKESPEARE'S REVISION OF KING LEAR. I argue that the 1623 text has different, and in ways that I like, "better" versions of roughly 10% of the play. The VALUE of these differences, I've argued, is that when we see a theater craftsman at work, we can understand better how theatrical codes may be read. Rembrandt's etchings on display at the Morgan Library right now let us note how he manipulated inks, papers, content, and overall forms. We see better for the exercise. It's more fun that way. I'd be glad to share offprints of essays I've written on this subject, and the LEAR book is still in print, a $16 or $17 paperback from Princeton. Joys of the crisp cold to all, Steve Urkowitz surcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 10:07:48 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0972 Qs: Red Play, White Play; Nedar's Daughter Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0972. Monday, 23 December 1996. (1) From: Mario Ghezzi Date: Friday, 20 Dec 1996 21:14:17 +1100 Subj: Red Play, White Play (2) From: Chris Stroffilino Date: Friday, 20 Dec 1996 17:38:08 -0500 Subj: Nedar's Daughter (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mario Ghezzi Date: Friday, 20 Dec 1996 21:14:17 +1100 Subject: Red Play, White Play Dear SHAKSPER, Just got notification of the Festival of Firsts as part of The Grand Opening of The Globe Theatre in London in June 1997. Advertised are the first performance of the 'Red Play' followed by the first performance of the 'White Play' on another day. Can anyone enlighten me, are these Shakespearean plays being referred to and if so which ones? I have not come across these terms before. Regs Mario Ghezzi (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffilino Date: Friday, 20 Dec 1996 17:38:08 -0500 Subject: NEDAR's Daughter Okay--at the risk of sounding like a Joel Fineman wanna be (I'm thinking of his claim that Julio Romano--the statue maker--is an inversion--of the statues of Romeo and Juliet at the end of that play), I am curious if anybody has done any work on just who NEDAR is. Are there classical antecedents that could come into play for this reference to MND's Helena's father? Or is it possible that NEDAR--is an anagram of ARDEN--Shakespeare's mother? since Helena is the character most like the "I" of most of Shakespeare's sonnets--and there is a veiled autobiographical account here it seems to me... On other news, I'd be interested in seeing a movie of RICHARD II (instead of always RICHARD III) but for that questionaire for SHAKESPEARE MAGAZINE who would be cast as who? Brad Pitt as Bullingbroke? Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 10:11:09 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0973 CFP Renaissance Humors Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0973. Monday, 23 December 1996. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Monday, December 23, 1996 Subject: CFP Renaissance Humors [Editor's Note: This CFP appeared on FICINO .] From: A. S. Weber Date: Friday, 20 Dec 1996 18:13:35 -0500 Subject: CFP Renaissance Humors ***************************************** CFP: THE HUMOROUS RENAISSANCE ***************************************** 1997 MLA Convention December 27 - 30, 1997 Toronto, Canada A. S. Weber Abstracts Due: March 1, 1997 Dear Colleagues: I am organizing a session for the 1997 MLA Convention in Toronto, Canada on the literary and scientific discourses of humor pathology from the late Middle Ages to the early modern period (circa 1400 - 1750). Suggested topics of enquiry may include: the language of specific texts such as Jonson's humor plays or Burton's ANATOMY, humoralism in literature, anti-humoral discourses (Paracelsianism), the diffusion of the Hippocratic and Galenic textual tradition and its cultural impact, the cross-cultural textual transmission of medical knowledge, astrological medicine, rhetorical aspects of humor pathology texts, etc. Please send 500 word abstract and description of research interests via regular mail or email (aweber@binghamton.edu) by March 1, 1997 to: A. S. Weber English Department SUNY Binghamton Binghamton, NY 13902. Ficino members may also be interested in three panels of related interest at this year's MLA convention: RHETORICS OF DISSECTION IN EARLY MODERN ENGLAND (Session 491, John G. Norman Chair), EARLY MODERN SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSES (Session 664, A.S. Weber Chair), and THE RHETORICS OF SCIENCE (Session 105, Alan Rauch Chair). Best Regards, Alan S. Weber English Department SUNY Binghamton, NY 13902 aweber@binghamton.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 21:30:09 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0974 Re: Merchant of Venice and Anti-Semitism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0974. Friday, 27 December 1996. (1) From: Susan Mather Date: Monday, 23 Dec 1996 12:37:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0968 Re: Merchant of Venice and Anti-Semitism (2) From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Monday, 23 Dec 1996 17:31:28 PST Subj: Merchant of Venice (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Monday, 23 Dec 1996 12:37:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0968 Re: Merchant of Venice and Anti-Semitism About anti-semitism. I understand this makes a great angle for reading the play, but what I've always wanted to ask--Does this mean that we're not supposed to regard Merchant of Venice as a "good" play because of the stereotyping? Or--read it at all because there is anti-semitism or seems to be anti-semitic overtones? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Monday, 23 Dec 1996 17:31:28 PST Subject: Merchant of Venice Jacob Goldberg objects to my recent posting, "at the risk of being guilty of joining the lawyer-bashing brigade." I do not regard those who disagree with me as guilty of lawyer-bashing. Especially when the disagreement is stated in a reasoned and civil way, as is true of Goldberg's message. The points I find most difficult to respond to are those relating to the fact that the statute cited by Portia is not a general statute prohibiting attempted murder, but is limited to attempts by aliens against the lives of citizens. I should begin by acknowledging that my use of the term "attempted murder" was anachronistic. At least, my criminal law colleagues tell me that the criminal law of attempts in something like its modern form developed shortly after Shakespeare's time. I used the term because, in effect, the statute functions as what we would think of as a prohibition of attempted murder. Except, as Goldberg points out, it operates only against aliens and protects only citizens. Why? (This question, "why?", must be understood as a question of literary interpretation, not of law or public policy, as we might ask if we were citizens in Shakespeare's Venice.) One possible answer is that because a general law of attempts was not yet in place, a general statute might have seemed strange to an Elizabethan audience, whereas a special, targeted statute might seem more plausible. Another possible answer is that there is no particular explanation, that the statute seemed natural to Shakespeare in the way that he wrote it. But it is also quite possible that the targeted nature of the statute is intended to have a thematic significance, as Goldberg suggests. As some of the other recent postings indicate, there are plenty of suggestions in the play of the hostility of the Venetian Christians toward the Jews in particular and, perhaps, towards aliens in general. Perhaps the limited nature of the statute under which Shylock is condemned is intended to be another such suggestion. Some of Goldberg's specific questions seem to me to be off the point. For example, "What if [Shylock] were not an alien...? Would he still be guilty of attempted murder?" Since we are dealing with a fictional Venice and a fictional statute, we can't put a gaggle of law firm associates to work overnight in the law library to find answers to such questions. Therefore, I see little point in asking them. More generally, however, I believe the questions Goldberg raises are significant and very difficult to answer. I, at least, do not have a firm view of the the significance or lack of significance of the targeted nature of the statute. While I therefore admit that Goldberg's questions are interesting and that I cannot answer them, I do not believe they undermine my hypothesis. Thematically significant in its targeted nature or not, fair or not, there is an attempted murder statute that applies to Shylock, and he has violated it. Furthermore, his crime is what lawyers used to call "malum in se" rather than "malum prohibitum." That is, the conduct is wrong in its own right, not simply because it is prohibited by law. If in fact Venetian law fails to criminalize similar action committed by citizens, the injustice lies in that failure, not in the statute that criminalizes the conduct for aliens. And if it is unfair, it is not an unfairness caused by Portia. She did not write the statute. I shall not try the patience of readers of this list by responding to Goldberg's other points, because I have more or less addressed them in an article I published a couple of years ago. If anyone is interested, send me a private message and I'll send you a copy. Or you can find it in Cardozo Law Review, v. 15, p. 1139 (1994). It is a very long article, but only about twenty pages are devoted to "Merchant." Best, Dan Lowenstein UCLA Law School ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 21:37:35 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0975 Re: Red Play, White Play; Festivals Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0975. Friday, 27 December 1996. (1) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Monday, 23 Dec 96 16:07:39 CST Subj: Re: SHK 7.0972 Qs: Red Play, White Play (2) From: Paul Nelsen Date: Tuesday, 24 Dec 1996 08:54:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0972 : Red Play, White Play (3) From: Skip Nicholson Date: Monday, 23 Dec 1996 14:19:50 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0971 Re: Festivals (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Monday, 23 Dec 96 16:07:39 CST Subject: Re: SHK 7.0972 Qs: Red Play, White Play I read in the theater column in our local paper that the two plays opening at the Globe in 1997 would be _Henry V_ and _The Winter's Tale_. Red and white make a certain amount of sense. Two additional plays are to be announced in February. Chris Gordon (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Nelsen Date: Tuesday, 24 Dec 1996 08:54:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0972 : Red Play, White Play Mario Ghezzi asks for explanation of cryptic "red" and "white" references to plays in a recent brochure for the new Globe. The premiere season at the Globe begins this summer and will feature four plays in repertory -- two performed by a "red" company and two by the "white." Each company will include about 17 actors. Two of the plays have been announced so far: Henry V (with Richard Olivier) and Winter's Tale. The other two selections will be revealed in February. The plan to use two companies of actors at the new Globe was adopted a couple of years ago. Paul Nelsen Marlboro College (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Nicholson Date: Monday, 23 Dec 1996 14:19:50 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0971 Re: Festivals Ronald Vince wrote: >Dave Evett mentioned that the the "Stratford Shakespeare Festival" was belying >its name by devoting only a third of its productions to Shakespeare. The >festival has for several years been known simply as "The Stratford Festival" in >recognition, one assumes, of the fact that Dave laments. American musicals >appear to be the preferred "draw." While it's true that only four of the twelve plays for the 1997 season at the Stratford [Ontario, Canada] festival are Shakespeare (Shrew, Romeo, Ricky 3, and Coriolanus) the implication that the other productions are all of "American musicals" isn't accurate. Four more are -arguably--classic plays (Oedipus Rex, Death of a Salesman, Juno and the Paycock, and Equus), two are contemporary (Eduardo de Filippo's "Filumena" and Dan Needles's "Wingfield Unbound"), and one is Marisha Chamberlain's adaptation of Alcott's "Little Women." That leaves one splashy musical, "Camelot." It's not enough Shakespeare for some of us, but the schedule doesn't really represent the surrender implied in "the lament." We should note, too, that for two of the past three years the "American" musical was, in fact, a dazzling and original Canadian production, "Alice Through the Looking Glass," and another was a spectacular "Pirates of Penzance." Ontario's still worth the trip from nearly anywhere in North America. Find all the details at www.ffa.ucalgary.ca/stratford/ Health and Happiness to all for '97 (Joy, gentle friends, &c.) Skip Nicholson ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 21:43:18 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0976 Re: Nedar's Daughter Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0976. Friday, 27 December 1996. (1) From: John Drakakis Date: Tuesday, 24 Dec 1996 01:48:16 -0000 Subj: RE: SHK 7.0972 Nedar's Daughter (2) From: Cristina Keunecke Date: Tuesday, 24 Dec 1996 06:22:02 -0300 Subj: Re: Nedar's daughter (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Tuesday, 24 Dec 1996 01:48:16 -0000 Subject: RE: SHK 7.0972 Nedar's Daughter Try Terry Hawkes' Meaning By Shakespeare Cheers John Drakakis (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cristina Keunecke Date: Tuesday, 24 Dec 1996 06:22:02 -0300 Subject: Re: Nedar's daughter To Chris: As you know, I am interested about MND's Helena's character (as well the other shakespearean Helena - from All's Well That Ends Well). And I am also curious about her father, the "old Nedar". I have checked all my classical and mythological sources in the attempt to know who is he, but I didn't find anything. About your reference in NEDAR being an anagram of ARDEN, I must confess that I am really not able to discuss that, because I am not very familiar to the complete Shakespeare's biography and to the Sonnets. But as you said in your last e-mail message to me, it's possible that Shakespeare maybe had identified with Helena (and as you said, with the both). And I don't know if its correct to say this, but, in MY opinion, at least in the comedies, it seems that Shakespeare had painted the female characters much more colorfull than the male characters. I don't know if this could help you, but only by reading the play MND, I have formulated some ideas about Nedar. Helena's father doesn't seem to be an important figure. I THINK he is a man without political and financial means, the opposite of Egeus, Hermia's father. He does not appear in the scenes, he is mentioned by the others only two times, even though his presence could be important. Like Egeus, who had appealed to the Duke to solve the matter of his daugther's mariage, Nedar could also had spoken to Theseus about Demetrius's broken vows to his daughter Helena and could asked for a solution. However, it seems that he has no power to ask for this. And this lack of political influence can give us more information about the initial rivalry between Lysander and Demetrius. It could be not only a rivalry for love, but also a rivalry for power. It's possible that Demetrius, seeing that Lysander, getting married with Egeus's daughter, would have more political power than he, who was to be married with Nedar's daughter, had decieded to reject Helena and tried to win Egeu's agreement to the match with Hermia. (And looking in this point of view at the other Helena - in All's Well That Ends Well -, Demetrius's rejection to his former fiance, seems to be very similar to that of Bertram). Yours, Cristina Keunecke P.S. I want to tell you that my e-mail address has changed. Now, it is the following: ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 21:49:10 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0977 Re: Film Suggestions; Branagh Hamlet; Knight's Imperial Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0977. Friday, 27 December 1996. (1) From: Gerda Grice Date: Monday, 23 Dec 1996 11:43:53 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0967 Re: Film Suggestions for Shakespeare Magazine (2) From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Wednesday, 25 Dec 1996 01:14:50 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0969 Re: Branagh *Hamlet (3) From: Judy Kennedy Date: Monday, 23 Dec 1996 14:31:57 -0400 (AST) Subj: Knight's Imperial Shakspere (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gerda Grice Date: Monday, 23 Dec 1996 11:43:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0967 Re: Film Suggestions for Shakespeare Magazine The play that I would like to see on film is _The Winter's Tale_. My first choices for Leontes and Hermione are the now ex real life spouses Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson. (Kate Nelligan would be a very acceptable second choice as Hermione, though.) As Perdita and Florizel, my first choices would be Emma Fielding and Rufus Sewell. They were excellent together in Stoppard's _Arcadia_ in London a few years ago; and Fielding's performance as Penthea in John Ford's _The Broken Heart_ a year or two later was quite spectacular. What I hope the director will resist is a) the temptation to lard his/her cast list with big name actors whose sole qualification for their roles is their box office value and b) the temptationoto use camera + computer trickery to "assist" the magic of Hermione's "resurrection". Gerda Grice Ryerson Polytechnic University Toronto, Canada (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Wednesday, 25 Dec 1996 01:14:50 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0969 Re: Branagh *Hamlet Hello, There is a question as to whether or not there has been a second, shorter version of Branaugh's "Hamlet," and I'd like to get some input as to what Branaugh is trying to accomplish. Now, Siskel and Ebert -- both who loved the movie --- said there was a shorter version. There's also a website alluding to this, but, last week, Branaugh came to Marin County for a special showing of the film along with Derek Jacobi and Robin Williams -- It was wonderful!! -- and he(kenneth) insisted there was no shorter version. Could it be that he is afraid that people will reject the longer version if this is so? The film is wonderful as I said before, and though I could understand the need to shorten it -- I believe that Jack Lemmon's part is of no importance whatsoever -- I certainly hope that they wait a while. JoAnna Koskinen (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judy Kennedy Date: Monday, 23 Dec 1996 14:31:57 -0400 (AST) Subject: Knight's Imperial Shakspere It is certainly true that Charles Knight published many editions of Shakespeare's works from 1838-42 on through a large part of the century. However, I would hesitate to identify the Imperial edition with the Pictorial edition. The 1838-42 edition 'The Pictorial edition of the works of Shakspere', is referred to under the siglum KNT1 in the New Variorum editions. It was frequently reprinted under that name, not always by Knight himself, into the 60s and 70s, at least. However, other Shakespeare editions by Knight were given different names. KNT2, of 1842-44, is referred to as the 'Library edition' or the 'National Edition'. KNT3 is the siglum used in the NV for 'the second edition revised' of the Pictorial edition, published by G. Routledge & Sons in 1867. (There are textual variants in all three of these texts, I am informed by my colleague.) Knight also put out a 'Cabinet Edition' and a 'Companion Edition.' The 'Stratford Shakespeare' also employed Knight's text. But I believe the title 'Imperial Edition' was first used of Virtue's London edition of 1873-76, reprinted by Virtue in London 1875-76, and by Virtue and Yorston in New York at the same date. I do not think that volumes called the Imperial edition, and carrying the imprint of Virtue and Yorston, can date from earlier than 1875-6. However, I certainly wouldn't be prepared to claim that they were not later, though I don't know of later reprints of the Imperial edition. (But Virtue's 'Shakespeare Gallery' [1879], listed by Jaggard at 546a, contains steel engravings from the Imperial edition.) Judy Kennedy jkennedy@stthomasu.ca========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 21:57:59 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0978 12th Night; Ophelia's Antifertility Herbs; Falling in Love Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0978. Friday, 27 December 1996. (1) From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Tuesday, 24 Dec 1996 18:36:11 -0500 Subj: 12th Night (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 25 Dec 1996 13:56:58 -0500 Subj: Ophelia's Antifertility Herbs (3) From: Chris Stroffilino Date: Friday, 27 Dec 1996 05:43:06 -0500 Subj: Falling in Love (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Tuesday, 24 Dec 1996 18:36:11 -0500 Subject: 12th Night I am running a "12th Night" celebration on Jan 6 at our school. Other than "Feast of Fools overseen by the Lord of Misrule ....servants served by masters.".. I can't find anything about the Elizabethan celebration..anyone help? Merry Christmas everyone...I love reading all your discussions. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 25 Dec 1996 13:56:58 -0500 Subject: Ophelia's Antifertility Herbs One of my colleagues, Lowanne Jones, brings John Riddle's Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1992) 106-107, to my attention. She points out that many of the antifertility herbs listed by Riddle are also mentioned by Ophelia. As I recall, this is not new news (i.e., that Ophelia's list is associated with antifertility), but it is interesting that Riddle apparently was not thinking of Shakespeare or Ophelia when he compiled his list. Neither Shakespeare nor Hamlet appears in the Index. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffilino Date: Friday, 27 Dec 1996 05:43:06 -0500 Subject: Falling in Love Hey, another stupid question that comes up over the holidays-- Harold Bloom is running around saying that Rosalind's use of the phrase "falling in love" in AS YOU LIKE IT is the first use of that phrase in the English language. Although I have not found an earlier use of that phrase, I am not the most well-read SHAKSPERian in earlier literatures. Does anybody want to prove Bloom wrong? If people didn't fall in love before Sx (i don't mean sex, sorry), WHAT did they do (tie it to anchors like Wyatt?). Thanks, chris stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 21:43:05 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0979 Qs: Letters and Reports; Did Belott Read the Sonnets Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0979. Monday, 30 December 1996. (1) From: Ching-Hsi Perng Date: Friday, 27 Dec 1996 09:51:52 +0800 (CST) Subj: Re: Letters and Reports in Shakespeare (2) From: Tim Clovis Date: Monday, 30 Dec 96 16:33:35 PST Subj: Did Belott Read the Sonnets? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ching-Hsi Perng Date: Friday, 27 Dec 1996 09:51:52 +0800 (CST) Subject: Re: Letters and Reports in Shakespeare I'm interested in the dramatic character of the letters that appear in Shakespeare's plays and in the reports given by dramatis personae about events that happen on stage. I've read a number of essays in journals on these topics but am ignorant about any book-length studies. Any suggestions for reading--monographs, articles, notes--on the use of letters and reports in Shakespeare would be greatly appreciated. Please address to: chperng@ccms.ntu.edu.tw Sincerely, Ching-Hsi Perng Dept. of Foreign Languages and Literatures National Taiwan University Taipei, Taiwan 106 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Clovis Date: Monday, 30 Dec 96 16:33:35 PST Subject: Did Belott Read the Sonnets? Every so often I like to poke around and see if there is anything new and exciting regarding two most extraordinary features of the data regarding Shakespeare. What better resource than the SHAKSPER list? To recount the well-known - in 1609 a series of poems were published, opening with a plea that some unnamed young lord should marry. In 1612, Master Shakespeare was called to witness in the Belott suit, regarding a time perhaps as early as 1602 when he had lain at the house of one Mountjoy. It is unusual, this theme that a young lord should marry, yes? Isn't it a strange coincidence that one of the occasions for the Bard to appear in court was over a duplicate to the role he played in the Sonnets? I think it's remarkable, and would welcome any comments or suggestions which deals with the possibilities I hint at. Private mail welcome to mailto:tcbowden@nerdnosh.org ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 21:47:26 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0980 Re: Festivals; Red and White Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0980. Monday, 30 December 1996. (1) From: Ronald Vince Date: Saturday, 28 Dec 1996 10:56:12 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Festivals (2) From: James Schaefer Date: Monday, 30 Dec 1996 10:21:19 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0975 Re: Red Play, White Play; Festivals (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronald Vince Date: Saturday, 28 Dec 1996 10:56:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Festivals Re: Skip Nicholson on Stratford. I seem to have left an impression I did not intend. But in fact, the "classics" that Skip notes get to be staged at Stratford at least in part because the musicals have consistently sold out. They ARE the preferred draw. Other productions may develop into hits, but management can count on the musicals -- which incidentally are usually very well done. I'm pleased that Skip thinks Ontario is still worth visiting; perhaps those of us who live here are just old, jaded and spoiled. Ah for the good old days of Guthrie and the tent! Cheers, Ron (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Monday, 30 Dec 1996 10:21:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0975 Re: Red Play, White Play; Festivals Regarding Paul Nelsen's clarification that plays at the Globe will be performed by two companies, a "Red" and a "White" -- can I assume that this an allusion to the houses of Lancaster and York, and the War of the Roses? It's been 30 years since I took intro to broadcasting, but in the 40's, either NBC or CBS ran two separate radio networks in the United Staes, one called the "Red" and the other the "Blue." The names had no particular meaning, except for their vaguely patriotic connotations. Perhaps the same applies in the present instance? Jim Schaefer ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 21:50:52 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0981 Re: Branagh Hamlet Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0981. Monday, 30 December 1996. (1) From: Patricia E. Gallagher Date: Saturday, 28 Dec 1996 08:43:05 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0977 Branagh Hamlet (2) From: David Jackson Date: Sunday, 29 Dec 1996 23:12:02 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 7.0977 Re: Branagh Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia E. Gallagher Date: Saturday, 28 Dec 1996 08:43:05 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0977 Branagh Hamlet In reference to the shorter version of "Hamlet", a friend of mine heard on NPR that the distributor insisted on a 2.5 hour version of the film (their assumption being that many theatre owners would be unwilling to run a four hour film). However, the theatre owners have announced that they are not interested in the shorter version, they WANT to air the 4 hour film. The motive on the part of the exhibitors is that they feel they will sell more food from the concession stand before the film and during the intermission. I also read that Branagh was adamant in filming a complete "Hamlet," and at this point, the primary venue for the shorter version will be airlines (for inflight showing) Patricia Gallagher hwest@ix.netcom.com (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Sunday, 29 Dec 1996 23:12:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0977 Re: Branagh Hamlet Re: JoAnna Koskinen's query about the shorter Hamlet film: apparently a two-hour version was planned, but the distributors and Branagh decided to just go with the uncut version; the movie theater companies, who it was feared would not take to a four-hour film, appear to have little problem with the length of the film, because they can still sell popcorn (their primary income source) during the intermission. David Jackson ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 21:54:54 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 7.0982 Re: Film Suggestions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0982. Monday, 30 December 1996. (1) From: James Schaefer Date: Monday, 30 Dec 1996 10:24:18 -0500 (EST) Subj: Film Suggestions (2) From: Monique Quinta Date: Monday, 30 Dec 1996 10:55:27 -0500 Subj: Shakespeare Film (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Monday, 30 Dec 1996 10:24:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Film Suggestions I'd like to see Woody Allen direct As You Like It, casting himself as Jaques. Jim Schaefer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Monique Quinta Date: Monday, 30 Dec 1996 10:55:27 -0500 Subject: Shakespeare Film My choice is King Lear. Filmed partly in black and white. Not sure of the actor choices but I think I should direct it.