========================================================================= 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 F