========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 15:19:47 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: 1.0001 SHAKSPER Initial Message Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 1. Thursday, 26 Jul 1990. Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 15:05:52 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Initial Message Dear Fellow SHAKSPEReans; Welcome at long last to the Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHAKSPER! This mailing is Volume 1, Number 1, the official beginning of what will rapidly become a large and geographically-widespread electronic community. Direct recipients of this message will have already received some of the test messages from Volume 0, either directly or in the original logbook. (The Volume 0 logbook has now been purged from the SHAKSPER Fileserver -- I will keep a single copy as a memento.) Many of you may have already realized that SHAKSPER owes its initial conception to HUMANIST, the Humanities Computing discussion group founded by Willard McCarty several years ago at the University of Toronto. If SHAKSPER succeeds it will be largely due to the model established by HUMANIST, and to the considerable assistance generously offered me by Willard himself. This welcome is "at long last" from my perspective, although perhaps not from your own. SHAKSPER's gestation has lasted more than a year, from the first twinkle in my eye, to the proposal made to the Executive of the Shakespeare Association of America at the 1990 Annual Meeting in Philadelphia this spring, to the nuts-and-bolts decisions and configurations made this month on Listserv. (Note that the SAA's official decision regarding the extent of its endorsement of and/or participation in SHAKSPER will not be made until the 1991 SAA conference in Vancouver.) My limited firsthand experience of childbirth leads me to fear that I might be stretching the analogy somewhat, but I do indeed feel as though I have been in labour for the past twenty-four hours: since the public announcement of SHAKSPER yesterday, subscription requests have been flooding in and I have barely been able to keep up with the automatic and not- so-automatic mailings therefore required. Already the considerable benefits of a moderated list are apparent: you would all have received dozens of misdirected subscription requests otherwise. Although official SHAKSPEReans currently number fewer than twenty, rest assured that this is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg: thirty Shakespeareans expressed strong interest in SHAKSPER via private correspondence long before the public announcement was made, and another thirty-two subscription requests have arrived today. The dozen names in the membership list reflect only the few who have now submitted their autobiographies and have been given full membership privileges. (Incidentally, please inform me if any errors have been inadvertently introduced into your file.) Self-evidently a mid-summer start date entails certain disadvantages: many potential members are absent from their e-mail accounts for research and leisure, and announcements may fail to reach others as well. (The travel plans of the editor add yet another layer of complication...). Nonetheless, a Bitnet discussion group on Shakespeare is long overdue, and once Steve Younker completed the delicate configuration of SHAKSPER, I could wait no longer. A chimerical Shakespeare conference, appearing on ListServ indexes worldwide but remaining inactive, would destroy whatever momentum the project had already achieved. As SHAKSPER continues to grow and evolve, it will doubtless continue to attract new members from the e-mail community. I hope that the resources and opportunities for discussion SHAKSPER offers will also be attractive to Shakespeareans who are currently reluctant to try e-mail. I am trying to infect others with my enthusiasm for e-mail and for this Conference, and I hope you will all find something here to recommend as well. Your notes, queries, announcements, comments, reviews, or questions are welcome. Yours, Ken Steele Editor, SHAKSPER University of Toronto or ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 15:21:24 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: 1.0002 Current Contents of SHAKSPER Fileserver Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 2. Thursday, 26 Jul 1990. Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 15:04:37 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Current Contents of the SHAKSPER Fileserver As conference papers, essays, articles, reviews, electronic texts, calls for papers, and announcements are posted on the SHAKSPER Fileserver they will be announced to the Conference as a whole. This initial announcement, however, will have to suffice to introduce the current contents of the Fileserver. First of all, the SHAKSPER Fileserver holds all the general information files which are sent to new members in the NEWMEMBR PACKAGE. These include a reasonably up-to-date listing of the Fileserver's contents and the membership list, the current file of member biographies, the SHAKSPER Guide, and the current Logbook. Members can obtain these files individually or as a package, by requesting the file NEWMEMBR PACKAGE. The SHAKSPER BIOGRAFY file on the fileserver will be continuously updated, and can be retrieved at any time by any member. The CMS program file, BIOGRAFY EXEC, is also available, and can be used to display the biography for any given SHAKSPERean from the BIOGRAFY file(s). Thanks go to Jim Coombs, the author of this program in a slightly different form, for permission to modify it and make it available on SHAKSPER. Currently only two conference announcements are available on the Fileserver: the outline programme and call for papers for the 1991 International Shakespeare Association Conference in Tokyo, Japan (TOKYO CONFERNC) and the Shakespeare Association of America's announced travel plans for that conference (TRAVEL TOKYO). Members are invited to forward copies of any conference announcements they may have received which would be of interest to other SHAKSPEReans. The Scholarly Papers section of the SHAKSPER Fileserver currently contains six submitted papers, four of which were submitted by the editor himself. Members are again invited to submit conference papers for posting in this area -- I will gladly remove my own when space no longer permits. The papers at present are the following: Stephen Matsuba. "`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) Hardy M. Cook. "A Shakespearean in the Electronic Study." A paper submitted to the computing approaches seminar of the 1990 SAA conference in Philadelphia. (ELECTRON STUDY) Kenneth B. Steele. "`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) ------. "Vowing, Swearing, and Superpraising of Parts: Petrarch and Pyramus in the Woods of Athens." Paper delivered at the 14th PMR 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) All members are encouraged to submit electronic copies of recent papers on Shakespearean subjects (many of the current papers are on computing themes, but this is purely fortuitous and should not discourage more conventional subjects). Please single-space, keep rather narrow margins, and be careful to format footnotes within square brackets. Include a paragraph describing the source of the paper, and your stance on copyright. A summary paragraph would enable me to make a more helpful announcement. (See the SHAKSPER GUIDE for more detailed instructions on obtaining a current INDEX of files on the server, or for retrieving specific files yourself.) KS. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 17:12:29 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: 1.0003 Canadian Performance of "Romeo & Juliette" (64) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 3. Thursday, 26 Jul 1990. Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 16:55:45 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Romeo & Juliette Rather than generating *heated* discussion by persecuting any Baconians who might be in our midst, I'll try to initiate an *illuminating* dialogue through recourse to my usual approach, describing a recent Shakespearean production I've seen. "Romeo & Juliette" [sic] played at the DuMaurier World Stage Festival on Toronto's Harbourfront last month. Nightcap Productions (Saskatchewan) set the play on the Canadian prairie, transforming the Montague/Capulet feud into a clash of English and French cultures. A la *West Side Story*, the drunken masquers attend the Capulet (pron. "Capulay") barbeque, where Paris in his business suit stands out from the rest of the country "hicks." Rapier duels are fought with baseball bats and tire irons, the balcony scenes take place over the tailgate of an ancient Fargo pickup truck, Romeo turns a pitchfork on himself in desperation, and the "Apothecary" is a drug pusher. This sort of modernization is familiar to everyone, I'm sure, but to what extent does it enhance the experience of Shakespeare's play and to what extent bury it? The bilingual feud was strikingly appropriate in the midst of Canada's Meech Lake crisis, and will be still more so this summer at the Stratford (Ontario) Festival now that Meech Lake has failed. The juxtaposition of French and English lines was fascinating for the audience, from the French soliloquies of Juliette to the closing lines, "For never was story of more woe, Que celle de Juliette et son Romeo." Romeo's wooing of Juliette is the more touching because he attempts to use her language, swearing "par la lune," and his attempts to communicate with Tybalt are all the more vain when he tries to express himself in halting French. Mercutio's lines about the French, "Signior Romeo, / there's a French salutation to your French / slop" (2.4.43) suddenly gain new relevance, too. Shakespeare uses snatches of French in many of his plays, so the technique of combining languages is perhaps not totally alien to its conception. To some extent every production is a "translation," of course, but has anyone seen similar things done with Shakespeare's language in other productions? How does this compare with the experience of seeing a foreign production which is completely in translation? Does anyone feel it unjust to foist modern (or Canadian) political implications on a Renaissance play? Or can it *be* a Renaissance play when performed in 1990? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 06:14:34 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: 1.0004 Modern Interpretations (91) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 4. Friday, 27 Jul 1990. (1) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 20:15:21 EDT (34 lines) From: Willard McCarty Subject: old plays in modern mode (2) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 05:51:12 EDT (35 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Modern Productions (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 20:15:21 EDT From: Willard McCarty Subject: old plays in modern mode I recall hearing about a production of Euripides' Bacchae in Toronto during the early 1970s in which the Maenads and Bacchantes were played as hippies, Pentheus as a fascist dictator. According to my informant the followers of Dionysus had long hair, wore outrageous clothing, smoked joints, and so forth. It was hugely successful, I am told. Of course it did great violence to Euripides' play, which is nothing at all like that, and had it been, it most certainly would never have survived to our day. But does anyone say that it is WRONG to try such things? Or take Pasolini's version of Euripides' Medea, very different than what it is based on. I happen also to think that Pasolini didn't manage to bring it off, but that's neither here nor there. Or perhaps it is. Perhaps the only criterion is whether or not the thing works. As my wife (an artist) is constantly reminding me, artists are notorious thieves, often with no respect whatever for the scholarly virtue of faithfulness to time and place. They take what they can use. On the other hand, I have observed how some of the greatest of these thieves (e.g. Ovid) manage to remain extraordinarily faithful to their material, although not in an antiquarian's sense. I get the feeling with Ovid, for example, that he reaches the timeless and brings it into his own time. So, can we expand and refine the criteria by which we tell whether some new production, say of Shakespeare, is successful by comparing it with a good traditional one? Can a new production by comparison with the old open our eyes to what is good, or what we think is good, about the old one? Willard McCarty (2) --------------------------------------------------------------39---- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 05:51:12 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Modern Productions I think I would agree with Willard McCarty when he suggests that the most important criterion for a modern production's legitimacy is its success on-stage; if modern embellishments are faithful to the central theme and are drawn from the play's own imagery, they can be powerful and effective. (I hope I pointed out some of the ways that the French/English clash was suggested by Shakespeare's own language and how certain situations truly gained in the translation.) Almost immediately, however, I start to see complications on the horizon. Certain plays seem to demand greater fidelity to the author's purpose than others. The Comedy of Errors, for example, has been successfully performed in New York as a combination Vaudeville/Juggling/Acrobatics display, and in Toronto on a stage covered with sand with the actors all in bathing suits. Perhaps the distinction I am making is simply generic, and I am simply observing that more liberties can be taken with comedies than with tragedies. Akuro Kurosawa's *RAN* is a very effective version of King Lear, though, despite its considerable transformation of the original play. Perhaps something essential is retained nonetheless. Although I did not have the opportunity to see Mabou Mines' King Lear when it showed here in Toronto (and I understand it also showed in New York), it sounds rather more radical, swapping the gender of every major character and turning it into a matriarchal tragedy. From the few still photos I've seen, though, it looks more like a transvestite performance of a comedy than a tragedy (did anyone see this production? Am I right?). Just how far can a director alter a Shakespearean play to make it more "relevant" and "modern" without transforming it into something completely different, like Tom Stoppard's *Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead* or Anne-Marie MacDonald's *Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet)* (both of which, incidentally, I enjoyed very much!) (and both of which, perhaps significantly, are comedies). Ken Steele ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Jul 90 21:12:05 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: 1.0005 Modern Interpretations (25) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 5. Sunday, 29 Jul 1990. Date: 28 July 1990, 07:21:25 EDT From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Following Willard and Ken, I think modernizing Shakespeare should depend on what works. I first saw *Lear* in a Canadian production in Eskimo dress, and it worked very well--furs on Lear emphasizing his massiveness and slit tunics on Goneril and Regan emphazising their evil sexuality. I had the pleasure of interviewing Jonathan Miller this last spring, and he still has no problems with *Merchant of Venice* in 19th c. dress or with Bob Hoskins as a cockney Iago (Miller quoted Hoskins as saying "Well, oim a villain, ain't I?"). Miller did feel that there were extremes of bad taste represented in some productions. One fictionalized production in a forgettable movie cast Richard III as an offensively gay king, but I can imagine a well-done version of the same general idea, with Richard's relationship with Buckingham being emphasized, as well as his disgust with Anne. Roy Flannagan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 11:44:29 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: 1.0006 Modern Interpretations, Branagh (151) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 6. Monday, 30 Jul 1990. (1) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 03:20:00 EDT (64 lines) From: matsuba@writer.uucp Subject: Modern Productions (2) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 11:10:25 EDT (67 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Branagh's Lear and MSND (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 03:20:00 EDT From: matsuba@writer.uucp Subject: Modern Productions Certainly one cannot complain about adapting Shakespeare to the modern stage if it works. But I do not think we can make comparisons between "modern" and "traditional" productions. The 19th Century's most popular productions involved what Michael Booth calls spectacular theatre, and the style of acting was entirely different from what we are used to. Henry Irving was considered the greatest Shakespearian actor of his day, but a recording of him doing Wolsey's final speech in *Henry VIII* had me rolling on the floor. An American journalist transcribed Irving's treatment of some lines in *The Merchant of Venice* as follows: Wa thane, ett no eperes Ah! um! yo ned m'elp. Ough! ough! Gaw too thane! Ha! um! Yo com'n say Ah! Shilock! Um! ouch! we wode hev moanies! (as qtd. in Ellen Terry, *The Story of My Life*. London: Hutchinson & Co., 1908. p. 273) But to most Victorian theatre-goers (both English and American), Irving's style of acting and production was perfectly acceptable-- even laudable. Irving was the first actor to be knighted. What I find interesting about contemporary productions of Shakespeare is how the theatre has changed its perception of Shakespeare's works completely. Now instead of seeing his plays as great temples of moral and cultural virtue, they are works for the "common people." Now the idea is to "popularize" Shakespeare, and make him "accessable" to the masses. And so I get to see *The Comedy of Errors* performed at Lincoln Center as schtick with the Flying Karamatzov Brothers, *The Taming of the Shrew* converted into the "Wild Bunch," and *A Midsummer Night's Dream* placed into "The Road Warrior." And how often do we see the comedies as opposed to the tragedies? Would the ratio today be the same as the 16th, 17th, 18th, or 19th Centuries? But I am not complaining about modern productions. I saw Kenneth Brannagh's productions of *Lear* and *Dream* when the Renaissance Theatre Company came to Toronto, and felt that they were very good. Emma Thompson's Fool was outstanding, and I feel her's will be considered one of the great interpretations of that role. And I did not agree with the Toronto critics, who for the most part panned both productions. For me, they were acting like snobs and saying, "We will not be taken in by this British company, because we are sophisticated Torontonians." They missed the point. Brannagh's interpretation of both plays, while seeking to be popular, employed a style that was "faithful" to the plays. My feeling is that we can compare styles, but to do so is more an exercise in theatrical and cultural history than one about Shakespeare. We can criticize and praise different productions, but we can never really talk about the "definitive" or even "traditional" productions any more than one can talk about the "definitive interpretation of the text. Stephen Matsuba York University matsuba@WRITER.YORKU.CA (2) --------------------------------------------------------------71---- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 11:10:25 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Branagh's Lear and MSND Well, perhaps this is somewhat tangential to the essential subject, but tangents are the foundation of most conversation. I don't believe that Toronto critics (and New York critics, and Los Angeles critics...) were being snobbish when panning Branagh's Lear and MSND. I found them both to be surprisingly *flat* productions: the cast was either tired or uninspired, and the audience soon caught this boredom from them. Ethna Roddy's Cordelia was truly awful; more than one noted Shakespearean has remarked to me that this was the only Cordelia they had ever seen whom they were actually glad to see die. I agree, Emma Thompson's fool was intriguing, and deserves the applause given it by almost every critic. Perhaps Branagh's Edgar and Quince would have been impressive, too, but understudies took both roles when I saw the productions. The staging for Branagh's Lear was expressive, but the endeavour to design a set for both MSND *and* Lear resulted in a set which was ideally suited for neither. Of course, twinned plays always create interesting resonances: I noted in particular that Snug carries a joint-stool around CONSTANTLY in MSND, but that in Lear's mock trial scene, the joint stool is purely a figment of his imagination. But the double feature at Stratford Ontario last year, combining the Comedy of Errors and Titus Andronicus in a single evening, did considerably more interesting things with the interconnections, I though, although they did justice to neither play in such abbreviated versions. Branagh's rain effect for the storm sequence was impressive -- a custom-designed sprinkler system created a semi-circular curtain of water cascading down into the ditch around the set -- but it was more spectacle than drama. More effective, for me, was the version of the storm on the heath presented on Toronto's Harbourfront by Theatresports, who staged a mock-King Lear in the duck pond wearing hip-waders. Lear and the Fool don goggles for the storm sequence, in which other actors hurl buckets of water from either side. But moving water does not assure moving drama. The workmen in Branagh's MSND were wonderful, of course -- the modern dress and tools brought their characters to life, and they ran away with the show (even Bottom was a disappointment compared to his peers). Perhaps the most hilarious moment of the play, though, was as Snug reverently approached Theseus and Hippolyta, and began handing out his business card to the members of the royal audience. Something I have noticed, though, is the phenomenal difference an audience can make to a production. Last year I saw David Williams' Shoemaker's Holiday twice at Stratford (Ontario, as always): the first time I saw it with a herd of Renaissance scholars, who applauded enthusiastically and added their energy to that of the players. I was convinced that this was the most successful play of the season. The second time, with my wife, I was mortally disappointed as the audience failed to grasp the jokes, sourly resisted applause, and the actors waned in enthusiasm as a result. Very different play, although only a few weeks had passed and the performance had not been altered. My point is that perhaps the Branagh production seemed equally remarkable during some of its performances, but I was not there during one. Branagh's cinematic Henry V, of course, is an amazing triumph which ranks him as Olivier's successor. Perhaps my expectations were too high for his stage productions -- or perhaps his true talent lies in directing film rather than stage productions. Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 19:53:27 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: 1.0007 Project Gutenberg Announcement (107) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 7. Monday, 30 Jul 1990. Date: Mon July 30, 1990 From: Michael S. Hart Subject: Project Gutenberg Project Gutenberg is not officially connected with the University of Illinois, at which the server resides, nor with any other institution, though we do have a working unofficial relationship with many. Besides the information included below, Project Gutenberg has expressed a great interest in the creation and distribution of electronic texts - etexts, especially of Shakespeare. We currently have been involved for several years in the creation and distribution of several editions, and are working on several more. By the time this gets posted, we hope and pray to have donated copies of the complete works FOR EVERY STUDENT AND THEATER GROUP MEMBER EVER TO ATTEND THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS. The purpose of Project Gutenberg is to encourage the creation and distribution of English language electronic texts. We prefer the texts to be made available in pure ASCII formats so they would be most easily converted to use in various hardware and software. A file of this nature will also be made available in various markup formats as it is used in various environments. However we accept files in ANY format, and will do our best to provide them in all. We assist in the selection of hardware and software as well as in their installation and use. We also assist in scanning, spelling checkers, proofreading, etc. Our goal is to provide a collection of 10,000 of the most used books by the year 2000, and to reduce, and we do mean reduce, the effective costs to the user to a price of approximately one cent per book, plus the cost of media and of shipping and handling. Thus we hope the entire cost of libraries of this nature will be about $100 plus the price of the disks and CDROMS and mailing. Currently the price of making CDROMS is said to be about $2,000 for mastering and then $5 per copy. I have it on fairly good authority that these prices are negotiable, and as actual cost, the price per CDROM is about $2. To create such a library would take less than one out of ten of a conservatively estimated 100,000 libraries in the U.S. alone: if each created one full text. If all the libraries co-operated, it would be less than 10% of a volume per library. If there were 10 members of each library creating electronic texts, then each only has to do 1% of a single book to create a truly public library of 10,000 books which would each be usable on any of the 100 million computers available today. So far most electronic text work has been carried out by private, semi-private or incorporated individuals, with several library or college collections being created, but being made mostly from the works entered by individuals on their own time and expense. This labor has largely been either a labor of love, or a labor made by those who see future libraries as computer searchable collections which can be transmitted via disks, phone lines or other media at a fraction of the cost in money, time and paper as in present day paper media. These electronic books will not have to be rebound, reprinted, reshelved, etc. They will not have to be reserved and restricted to use by one patron at a time. All materials will be available to all patrons from all locations at all times. The use of this type of library will benefit even more greatly in the presence of librarians, as the amount of information shall be so much greater than that available in present day libraries that the patron will benefit even more greatly than today from assists in their pursuit of knowledge. Therefore, we call on all interested parties to get involved with the creation and distribution of electronic texts, whether it's a commitment to typing, scanning, proofreading, collecting, or what ever your pleasure might be. Please do not hesitate to send any e-texts you might find to this address. If you prefer sending disks, a mailing address follows. We hope to be thanking you soon for your participation. The easiest way for you to find out about Project Gutenberg is to via subscription to the GUTNBERG listserver. You can do it by sending the following message to LISTSERV@UIUCVMD.BITNET: SUB GUTNBERG YOUR NAME Your name must have at least two words. Please do not use the long extensions describing your position as it delays mailers, at least on some occasions. Your bitnet address is preferred, but internet addresses usually work, and I can usually figure, with the help of our consultants, how to get mail to the odder addresses we receive. Please don't hesitate to ask for specific information so it is included in the GUTNBERG mailings. Please send these question messages separately from your subscription message. Michael S. Hart, Director, Project Gutenberg National Clearinghouse for Machine Readable Texts BITNET: HART@UIUCVMD INTERNET: HART@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (THE GUTNBERG SERVER IS LOCATED AT GUTNBERG@UIUCVMD.BITNET) (Internet address is GUTNBERG@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU - the server only recognizes subscription commands, others routed to me) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 13:26:26 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: 1.0008 Moralizing Shakespeare & Critical Theory (41) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 8. Wednesday, 1 Aug 1990. Date: Tue, 31 Jul 90 21:28:59 EDT From: matsuba@writer.uucp Subject: New discussion The discussion about the nature of Shakespearian productions raises the question about the nature of Shakespearian studies. I have been working on a paper that looks at Charles Kean's and Henry Irving's productions of *Henry VIII*, and in my research I looked at 19th Century adaptations of Shakespeare for children (the most famous are Lamb's *Tales*). What struck me was the way that Shakespeare was held up as a great moral teacher--a sentiment that one finds in most of the scholarly criticisms of the time. In fact, I have found a book by Arthur Gilman called *Shakespeare's Morals: Suggestive Selections, with Brief Collateral Readings and Scriptural References* (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1880). Besides revealling to the reader "the alliance of meaning and inference contained in his daily dramas," the book is supposed to "sharpen the moral sense, quicken the reverence of thoughtful minds for great historical truths ... and to fortify the better nature against the assaults of mean, petty, sordid sentiments" (from the prospectus for the book). Which, after reading the book, one discovers is "know your place and do not be ambitious." And while we can snicker at the Victorian predisposition towards the status quo, critical theory and critical practice tells us that such prodispositions exist in all criticisms. New Historicism versus Cultural Materialism, Post-Colonialism, Feminism, Deconstruction--what baggage are our critical methods carrying? I throw this bit out for debate since there can never be the definitive answer, but why not get the ball rolling? Stephen Matsuba York University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 14:01:02 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: 1.0009 E-mail Addressing Confusion (66) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 9. Wednesday, 1 Aug 1990. Date: Wed, 01 Aug 90 13:58:52 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Please Check Your Address Some SHAKSPEReans have reported rejection messages from the Listserv or Fileserver when issuing interactive commands as outlined in the SHAKSPER GUIDE. I have added the following paragraph to the SHAKSPER GUIDE so that new members will not be mystified in similar fashion, but for current members I reproduce it here: Confusion is commonly caused by the fact that many SHAKSPEReans have two potential e-mail addresses. The longer, "domain" address, will look something like mine: "KSTEELE@vm.epas.utoronto.ca", while the shorter "RSCS" address is more like "KSTEELE@utorepas". The problem is not in receiving daily mailings -- any correct address will work just fine. The difficulty is in using interactive messages to obtain information from ListServ or documents from the SHAKSPER Fileserver. Most of ListServ's commands are available ONLY to registered SHAKSPEReans (commands such as "get," "review," or "set"). ListServ recognizes members by comparison with the member list -- and here begin the difficulties. When you issue an interactive (or "tell") command to ListServ, the "RSCS" address is automatically attached to it. If you have subscribed under your "domain" address instead, then, ListServ will not recognize your command as coming from an actual SHAKSPERean. In similar fashion, if you subscribe under your "RSCS" address, ListServ will not recognize commands you mail in (because your mailer software will automatically attach your "domain" address to mail messages). Because interactive commands are usually all that members require, where possible it is best to be subscribed under your shorter, "RSCS" address. (An added complication: should you wish to subscribe under your "domain" address instead, ListServ is case-sensitive: be sure that your subscription capitalization is identical to the capitalization used by your mailer program, or ListServ will not recognize your mailed commands.) The good news is that if you don't understand a word of this paragraph, and can only write your e-mail address one way, you can forget all about this. PLEASE NOTE: I would like to ask that current members check their address at the top of this mailing: if the SHAKSPER Listserv is using a longer "domain" address for you, and you know of a shorter "RSCS" address, please advise the editor and he will alter your subscription information. You can also verify that your address is correct by issuing an interactive command, such as "TELL LISTSERV AT UTORONTO GET FILELIST SHAKSPER" -- if ListServ rejects your request, the probably cause is your address record. My apologies for the lengthy technicalities, but brief explanations seem to prove still more confusing. Ken Steele Editor, SHAKSPER University of Toronto or ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 17:16:28 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: 1.0010 Modern Interpretations (67) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 10. Wednesday, 1 Aug 1990. Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 16:04 EDT From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: "Modern" Interpretations Performance constitutes interpretation. We may learn from any performance, but to characterize a production as modern, traditional, historical, or whatever raises theoretical questions. The issue obviously has nothing to do with being definitive or not; the issue involves the nature of performance itself. During Shakespeare's time, we know from the pen-and-ink sketch of a moment in *Titus Andronicus* that costuming was flexible: in this case, suggesting both Roman and contemporary Elizabethan dress at the same time. Similarly, many "modern" production use costuming that belongs to no identifiable period. As we know, much contemporary criticism questions the notion of a stable text. Stephen Orgel even argues in "Authentic Shakespeare" that the closest we can come to authentic Shakespeare is the performance history of a text: The point is that the acting text of a play always was different from the written text -- this means not simply that it was different from the *script*, what the author wrote. It also means that this was the situation obtaining in Shakespeare's own company, of which he was a part owner and director -- it was a situation he understood, expected, and helped to perpetuate. And it implies as well that Shakespeare habitually began with more than he needed, that his scripts offered the company a range of possibilities, and that the process of production was a collaborative one of selection as well as of realization and interpretation. The point is that production involves appropriation. Every performance is "something completely different." Willard may be correct to assert that "Perhaps the only criterion is whether or not the thing works." For example, two of my most stunning theatrical experiences were seeing the Brook *MND* in 1971 and the Suzuki *Lear* in 1988. Let me give the last word to Stephen Orgel in the hopes of continuing this discussion: The assumption is that texts are representations or embodiments of something else, and that it is that something else which the performer or editor undertakes to reveal. What we want is not the authentic play, with its unstable, infinitely revisable script, but an authentic Shakespeare, to whom every generation's version of a classic drama may be ascribed. Hardy M. Cook Bowie State University HMCOOK@BOE.TOWSON.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 17:18:12 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: 1.0011 Other Bitnet Discussion Groups (129) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 11. Wednesday, 1 Aug 1990. (1) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 16:03 EDT (45 lines) From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: List Memberships (2) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 90 16:51:18 EDT (64 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Bitnet Discussion Groups (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 16:03 EDT From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: List Memberships SHAKSPEReans: In his biography, Ken Steele mentions that he has been "a brief or long-term member of ENGLISH, LITERARY, WORDS-L, REED-L, GUTNBERG, TEI-L, SFLOVERS, and most of all, HUMANIST." I too am a member of HUMANIST and GUTNBERG as well as PMC-LIST and PMC-TALK. I am interested in finding out about those lists of which I am not a member at present. So, Ken, would you tell me about ENGLISH, LITERARY, WORDS-L, REED-L, TEI-L, and SFLOVERS? Also, are there other lists that others of you belong to? For my part, let me give some information about PMC-LIST and PMC-TALK. PMC-LIST, *Post Modern Culture Journal*, is a juried, electronic journal, that will publish its first issue this fall. PMC-TALK, Postmodern Culture Journal Discussion List, is an open and unedited discussion group that was set up to run alongside the edited journal. Inquiries about PMC-LIST can be made to the Journal Editor, John Unsworth at PMC@NCSUVM. If you would like to subscribe to PMC-TALK, you may do so by following these directions posted by the editors: >send an e-mail letter to LISTSERV@NCSUVM (or, if you are on the >Internet, to LISTSERV@NCSUVM.NCSU.EDU) containing the following one- >line command: > subscribe pmc-talk [your first and last name] >Do NOT send your request to the list itself (i.e., do not send >your request to pmc-talk@ncsuvm; if you do, it will be >distributed as mail to all the list's subscribers). If for some >reason this does not seem to work, send mail with your request to >the journal's address, pmc@ncsuvm (or, on the Internet, >pmc@ncsuvm.ncsu.edu). P.S. I also communicate remotely with academic libraries; this is an area that we may wish to explore on SHAKSPER at a later date. Hardy M. Cook Bowie State University HMCOOK@BOE.TOWSON.EDU (2) --------------------------------------------------------------68---- Date: Wed, 01 Aug 90 16:51:18 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Bitnet Discussion Groups There are literally *thousands* of Bitnet discussion groups accessible like SHAKSPER. A complete listing (which will take a few hours to read through) can be obtained by sending the "list global" command to Listserv@utoronto, either as a mail or interactive message. These groups include various scientific specialties, computer user groups, WordPerfect and NotaBene groups, philosophy, history, and much more. Some of the more relevant lists of which I am aware include these: HUMANIST@Brownvm - A moderated discussion group for humanities computing Contact the EDITORS@Brownvm for further information. ENGLISH@Utarlvm1 - An unmoderated and rather quiet group for teachers and students of English literature. LITERARY@Ucf1vm - An unmoderated and rather active, though casual, discussion group, primarily for contemporary literature (it would seem). TEI-L@UICVM - A discussion of the Text Encoding Initiative. REED-L - The Records of Early English Drama list -- also here at Toronto. A topic which should be generating more discussion than it is. Unmoderated. WORDS-L@YALEVM - Dedicated to the English Language, but essentially a very active group discussing linguistic trivia (a great many queries are asked which a quick check of the OED could answer, unfortunately). ANSAX-L@WVNVM - An Anglo-Saxonist discussion group. SFLOVERS@Rutvm1 - A Science Fiction literature/media discussion group. Unmoderated. C18-L@PSUVM - An interdisciplinary discussion of the eighteenth- century, predominantly literary. Unmoderated. NEW-LIST@Ndsuvm1 - A list dedicated to announcements of new lists. FWAKE-L@IRLEARN - A list dedicated solely to discussion of Joyce's *Finnegan's Wake* MORRIS@SUVM - A list dedicated to Morris Dancing. These lists vary greatly in quality; some I would recommend, others I have abandoned in despair. A number may grow to be more effective as time goes on. The only true evaluation is to subscribe and see. In each case, send the command "SUB listname John H. Doe" to the listserv at the node indicated, and you will either be automatically added to the list or given further information. Ken Steele Editor, SHAKSPER University of Toronto or ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 17:19:57 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: 1.0012 Moralizing Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 12. Wednesday, 1 Aug 1990. (1) Date: 1 August 1990, 13:31:37 EDT (17 lines) From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB (2) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 90 16:45:10 EDT (96 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Moralizing Shakespeare (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 August 1990, 13:31:37 EDT From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB An almost instant response to the discussion point about moralizing Shakespeare: I was profoundly shocked when I compared the plot summary of *Hamlet* in a 1950s edition of the *Oxford Companion to English Literature* with the 1980s revision of the same book. The first plot was nothing like the second. Because my tastes had also evolved, I agreed with everything the second said, and felt betrayed by the first. The same thing has happened with Olivier's *Hamlet*, which I probably admired before Gielgud's, though now Jacoby's has replaced both, though even the memory of Jacoby's is beginning to tarnish. Even Jonathan Miller does not think that more than one or two of his productions of Shakespeare that have been taped deserve to be preserved or remembered, because somehow most of them are no longer valid or timely. Why does Olivier's *Richard III* hold up better than his *Hamlet*? Or do you think it doesn't? Roy Flannagan (2) --------------------------------------------------------------100--- Date: Wed, 01 Aug 90 16:45:10 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Moralizing Shakespeare Stephen Booth has written an amusing and thought- provoking piece for the latest *Shakespeare Quarterly* (41:2 Summer 1990) entitled "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time and All Others" (262-8). It opens a number of cans of worms, including some rather closely related to the moralizing of Shakespeare, and I hope it will spark some discussion. Booth begins by declaring that "this essay is a small, though pugnacious, crusade, and its destination is some pragmatic reasons why teachers of literature should stop lying to children -- or, to put it more graciously than I care to -- should stop telling students things about literature that they do not themselves believe." He elaborates later: What is truly troublesome... is evidence that some of us, too many of us, are so desperate to have philosophically dignified reasons for devoting time and attention to literature -- or so respectful of what "everybody always says" or so unreasonably humble before the dicta of the experts who taught us or are the authors of respected books -- that we go into classrooms daily to tell students things about this or that play that we do not ourselves see to be true. Like the high-school biology students who "look in their microscopes at the protozoan creatures alleged to be there, see their own eyelashes, and then just copy the illustration in the book," Booth suggests that literature students grow increasingly good at "giving them what they want" until they become teachers themselves; that students quickly learn that "success in school is in *pretending* to be other than they are." There are many sonorous defences for higher education, but are they also just so many more cliches? Booth also tilts at literary criticism, which, he says, seems to assume "that critical attentions make literary works work better. What criticism does in fact is make them work -- or, rather, pretend to have made them work -- differently, usually more simply, than they did[.]" (Booth later attacks the current fashionable critical approaches, "made dazzling by their novelty or made to seem deep by the density of their vocabularies[.]") Can we understand *anything* without simplifying it, though? Doesn't the mere reduction to language simplify experience? Booth declares that "the one least deniable secondary characteristic of literature is its need of justification. Some critics focus openly on the need: Horace; Philip Sidney; librarians during Book Week; and so on." Other arts, he argues, seem immune from such bourgeouis guilt: "by and large, we spend little time or energy trying to deny the frivolity of music, painting, sculpture, dance, and so forth." Can we stop trying to justify literature and its study? Has anyone found a justification which survives without "taffeta phrases, silken terms precise"? Booth's best paragraph on moralizing Shakespeare runs as follows: [S]ophisticated critics pretend to scorn the idea of moralizing literature. What they actually scorn, however, is usually only the word "moral" and its connotations. They would never be caught saying that Shakespeare's plays are valuable and valued because they teach us lessons. Sophisticated critics will have nothing to do with comfortable sales pitches for *Macbeth* or *Othello* as good for us -- and surely good for young children -- on the grounds that they teach us that wickedness is bad. And yet, the mass of interpretive criticism comes to conclusions that are hardly different in kind, only more persuasive and palatable because they are vague. Consider, for example, the Cambridge school of criticism.... From the late 1940s until well into the 1960s, Cambridge University turned out droves of critics determined to see just about any literary work and every Shakespeare play as a demonstration that nature is good and art is wicked. They presented us a Shakespeare who is the philosophical love child of D.H. Lawrence and Agnes Gooch (Agnes Gooch is the emotionally reborn young woman who runs around in *Auntie Mame* shouting "Live! Live!"). The old familiar objection to literature as a vehicle for moral training seems to underlie Booth's dismissal of moralization: "There are quicker ways than a month on *Romeo and Juliet* to generate discussion on parenthood and adolescence." What do others believe teaching Shakespeare is all about? Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Aug 90 09:07:11 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: 1.0013 Interpreting, Moralizing, Analyzing Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 13. Thursday, 2 Aug 1990. Date: [August 1, 1990] From: [Thomas Clayton ] Subject: [Modern Interpretations; Moralizing; Critical Theory] This is all too fast for me, and I have no business in it. And being about to leave the hemisphere and e-mail for six weeks, I was determined to be a silent reader of the interesting discus- sion on Shakespearian production I have been following (through SEC 1.8), but Stephen Matsuba's comments on critical predisposi- tions (SEC 1.8) elicited these few impressions on theory and practice that may safely be ignored, especially since they take almost NO account of 1.10-12, but see postscript (par. 8). 1. One of the things I like about the term "predisposition" is that it enables a personal emphasis wanting in objectivistic terms like "basic assumptions." We (perhaps not you but I) think in part as psychologically predetermined to think, as well as by education and experience, and according to the matter under investigation and the 'methods' available for analysing it. A persistent concern with production arises in part from predisposition. (So what?) 2. It is quite possible to assume the theory and ignore the predispositions as such and yet have a productive discussion-- provided those discussing share (or tolerate differences in) these. That was pretty much the case with Leavis and the *Scru- tiny* critics, for example (whom it is too easy to whip), as it is for all coterie critics (the current ones are carressed). It was the case with many Shakespeare critics of most schools up to the mid seventies; and it seemed mostly to be the case in the earlier SEC exchanges, of which I was tempted to ask, however, 'successful' for whom and at what? 'Works' (on) what or whom, and how? 'Legitimate' ditto? (if the notion of 'legitimacy' is accepted; it is by me, but I am in no position to impose it ex cathedra, nor is anyone else, for those who deny the legitimacy and authority of a cathedra). 3. Asking questions like 'wherefore?' may lead quickly away from particular plays, productions, and criticism and into the world of theory (and what SM calls 'the nature of Shakespearian studies'), which may or may not be worth a protracted visit-- theoretically: practically, it occupies most of the space of 'English' in many places, at present. In his book, *The Trivial Pursuit: Literary Theory and the End of English* (1989; title changed by Fontana to *Fraud: Literary Theory*, etc., for market- ing purposes), Peter Washington remarks that 'radical theorists are inclined to deal with these problems by theorizing them, which boils down to replacing Shakespeare's texts with critical arguments about them as the topic for study' (172), as often hap- pens, with more loss than gain in the area of Shakespearian par- ticulars. 4. It is sometimes useful to answer the question, 'when is a production not a production?' with 'when it's an adaptation'. It is true that performance history records so many alarums and excursions that in strict terms the class 'adaptation' contains rather more members than the class 'production', but the notions seem to have some instructional value, anyhow, even if the ques- tion of intentionality further complicates ('can an "adaptation" be without being intended as such?' If Henri Rousseau can paint sleeping gypsies that he supposes perfect realism, yes). It has been noted in SEC-to-date that there can be no definitive produc- tion because there can be no definitive interpretation (and, now, no definitive text), but if there is NO limitable range of 'core' meaning (and significance, to draw E. D. Hirsch's useful if shifting distinction) that may be ascribed to a particular play, on which a number of reasonable and informed persons can agree, then the unlimited play of 'signifiers' is the name of the game, any performance or deformance is a 'production', and one may be more 'successful' or 'work' better than another according to ad- hoc criteria or none (what's in a?). Under such circumstances, Stanley Fish's 'interpretive com- munities' have theoretical purpose, because only majorities (the argument goes) can confer meaning (or at least significance). That is rather like a Through-the-looking-glass solution, but where it pleases the majority, it settles issues, period. 5. Roger Manvell or someone else remarked that Kurosawa's *THRONE OF BLOOD* (U.S.; *CASTLE OF THE SPIDER'S WEB*, U.K. and a literal translation, I am told; *Macbeth* by any other) is (or at the time was) the best film ever made of a play by Shakespeare, a view with which I have some sympathy. To the extent that this may be so, it must be because there is a pervasive kinship between the film and the script that bridges the obvious gaps--of which there are arguably fewer than there are in *RAN* (a question to be asked--but not by me, at the moment). In any case, in order to be able to assert this, it must be assumed that film and script can each be understood and the two compared in some intelligible ways justifying the inference that there can be more affinity between works across media and culture than there sometimes is between script and stage mediation of the script, and an adapta- tion or a 'version' can be more 'faithful to the original(s)' than many a rendering that calls itself ('legitimately'?) a pro- duction. That is, for those for whom there is a recognizable and valuable 'original', and for whom fidelity of expression-- whatever it may be--is a virtue. (How many 'originals' is another sort of enquiry: is there an archetypal *Hamlet* behind and/or constituted of Q1, Q2, and F--that is both like and different from conflated editions?) A lot of critical enquiries come down to the question whether a 'performance' speaks, or should speak, for the script or to the post-scriptural audience, as though one couldn't do something of both, which in fact most directors prob- ably try to do, however they describe their efforts. 6. Having failed adequately to distinguish between 'produc- tion' and 'adaptation', I have been naturally moved to go on to try to differentiate illusorily between two apparently similar but intentionally (and/or effectually) different kinds of produc- tion, as designed for (and/or accomplishing) 'exploitation' and 'alienation', respectively. Hypothetically speaking, the former involves cynical manipulation of script and audience, the latter (a la Brecht) invites audiences to see through the script as well as reflect beyond it. The difference is mainly theoretical, however, partly because it turns on intention when none would admit to 'exploitation', and it is not surprising that critics have trouble distinguishing one kind from the other, since nei- ther kind is concerned to express the intentionality of script and/or playwright. A case in point is Bogdanov's RSC Mafioso pro- duction (1986-87?) of *Romeo and Juliet*, which Stanley Wells saw as (in effect) an exploitation production that others (including the director) might see (or claim) as an alienation production. The performance couldn't get an A from both instructors. 7. In my experience, persons of quite different theoretical orientation find themselves on substantially common ground when it comes to cases that must be controverted there, and resulting disagreements over such (recent) perennial 'problem' plays as *THE MERCHANT OF VENICE* are likely to come down to eminently recognizable basics, however complex their expression--and what is involved on stage is inevitably a function substantially of what the script says and 'means' (for a start). This seems to me to be so (if it is) because mimesis in Shakespeare's plays is so very much of what they are, making Aristotle a good background- guide to what makes them 'work--succeed': plot first, character second, and so on. (I mean 'background-GUIDE' not Procrustean grid.) The same basics cause most persons, of whatever degree of innocence or experience, to talk about Shakespeare's dramatis personae not as fictional entities suggested by the script but as though they were actual persons ('What did Hamlet read/major in at Wittenberg?' 'How close were he and Horatio there?' are L. C. Knights-like reductiones ad absurdum of quite common responses). The innocent make no bones about it: their experience of eminently real (sc. fictional) persons like Hamlet is sufficient validation of their existence (that is, we read them, so they/ we are). The extravagantly sophisticated in fact tend to talk in much the same way as the innocents, when they descend to such dimensions, however darkly they may express them. So all can argue, and most do, in one critical language or another, whether Shylock is the 'hero' of the play, whether he is a villain, whether the play is the product and vehicle of antisemitic sensibility, whether Antonio is in love with Bassanio, whether Belmont is the land of Festive grace and leisure or of aristocratic oppression and conspicuous consumption, and so on. I personally think also that it continues to speak well for Shakespeare that this acute sense of living persons IS as it is, and that it also partly explains why the Victorians could find morality in Shakespeare (so do I, some of his, some of mine, some of both, some of other). Whatever 'morality' is in any particular set of sociocultural circumstances, it is inevitably present when characters who matter are in conflict and come to one or another end, as all do. Me too. Herewith, with apologies. Black Adder II beckons. Cheers, Tom Clayton P.S. 8. Three points (among many others) that caught my attention in 1.10-12. (1) "Willard may be correct to assert that "Perhaps the only criterion is whether or not the thing works" (on) what or whom? I ask again. (2) "Even Jonathan Miller does not think that more than one or two of his productions of Shakespeare that have been taped deserve to be preserved or remembered, because somehow most of them are no longer valid or timely"--relative to what? Presumably his criterion is their adaptation quotient, which is determined by the precise social or other circumstances for which he designed his production. It has been suggested many times that the more one speaks to particular persons and events, the less one speaks to any other. A lot of productions suggest as much. Branagh's *Henry V* seems to me to be much less limited than Olivier's, by this measure--but there are dimensions of Olivier's FILM that may be estimable, and estimably Shakespearean, in them- selves, that Olivier MAY deserve credit for attempting (and per- haps succeeding at) as well as Branagh for eschewing. (3) 'The old familiar objection to literature as a vehicle for moral training seems to underlie Booth's dismissal of moralization: "There are quicker ways than a month on *Romeo and Juliet* to generate discussion on parenthood and adolescence."' But that surely is not the end if it is even the beginning of the 'moral' issues touched on in *Rom.*, arguably not even its thematic West Side Stority. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Aug 90 16:26:21 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: 1.0014 New Papers on the SHAKSPER Fileserver (115) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 14. Thursday, 2 Aug 1990. Date: Thu, 02 Aug 90 16:20:34 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: New Papers on SHAKSPER Fileserver Two scholarly papers have been submitted to the SHAKSPER Fileserver since the initial description of the server's contents was made in SHAKSPER 1.0002. Both authors have expressed a desire for comments and feedback from other members of this conference. The papers are the following: Gary Waller, "Teaching the Late Plays as Family Romance." [FAMILY ROMANCE on the Fileserver.] Stanley D. McKenzie, "The Prudence and Kinship of Prince Hal and John of Lancaster in 2 Henry IV." [PRUDENCE KINSHIP] I have included below the initial paragraphs of Gary Waller's draft, and the abstract from Stanley McKenzie's paper. For more information on using the SHAKSPER Fileserver, please consult the SHAKSPER GUIDE, or the editor. All SHAKSPEReans are reminded that they are welcome to submit any relevant items for storage on the Fileserver, and any relevant announcements for distribution to the conference. ----------------------------------------------- Gary Waller Teaching the Late Plays as Family Romance DRAFT ONLY--FOR COMMENT, NOT QUOTATION [Please do NOT distribute.] To teach the late plays as what Freud called the 'family romance" may, I believe, get us as close to the continually decentered centers of these plays as we and our students can. Indeed, I confess that when reading and teaching them, I find myself, openly or shamefacedly, recuperated by a humanistic valorization of the text which I sometimes thought to have expunged from my critical practices. While that is a separate issue of theory (and teaching), it is not irrelevant to the ways these plays may help us understand the "tempest. . . birth, and death" (Per 5.3.33-34) of our lives. Nor to the extent to which Freud's concept of the "family romance" also focuses on crucial, perhaps permanent, parts of our individual and collective lives. Specifically, reading these remarkable plays can produce in their readers and spectators an uncanny mixture of what The Winter's Tale calls "joy" and "terror" (IV.i.1). It thus provides what some psychoanalysts term a "safe haven" for the acknowledgement and therapeutic release of pent-up primitive anxieties (Eagle, 212). In teaching them, however, I do not simplistically suggest that these plays 'reflect' some universal, dehistoricized pattern (although I certainly point out to students how a Freudian reading can fall into that trap) but rather try to find ways by which the patterns Freud gestured to in his concept of the "family romance" are enacted within different historical formations and, therefore, different readers' experiences (see Poster). As a starting point for reading the late plays as family romances,I usually have my students read Freud's short essay, "Family Romances" As with most of Freud's essays, it is surprisingly straightforward as well as highly suggestive and so is appropriate even for an introductory Shakespeare class. With advanced classes, I introduce some more recent rewritings of the Freudian reading of the family, notably the work by Margaret Mahler on separation and individuation and the psychological birth of the human infant, the feminist account of the family by Juliet Mitchell, Deleuze and Guattari's reworking of the oedipal myth, and some extracts from Theweleit's Male Fantasies. But the Freud essay in itself gives us an agenda that is uncannily powerful for reading the late plays. . . . ----------------------------------------------- Stanley D. McKenzie The Prudence and Kinship of Prince Hal and John of Lancaster in 2 Henry IV. Attached is a paper of mine on 2HenryIV that is currently in press at Ohio University Press as part of a two volume festschrift in honor of George Anastaplo (eds. William T. Braithwaite, Robert L. Stone, and John A. Murley); the theme of the festschrift is "The Practice of Theory," and it contains articles from the fields of philosophy, law, political science, and literature (in all of which Anastaplo has published). The festschrift is of course copyrighted and will have a December 1990 publication date. ABSTRACT In Henry IV, Part II, Shakespeare establishes a close structural relationship between Prince Hal and Prince John of Lancaster. The plot, imagery, and thematic motifs of the play create a functional ethic of personal and political prudence within which Henry V's rejection of Falstaff and John's betrayal of the rebels at Gaultree are commendable and akin. Although John and the rebels are of secondary importance to Hal and Falstaff, the play dramatically foreshadows the outcome of both plots. Several minor images in the play link Falstaff with the rebels and Hal with John, while the major images of disease, time, and unfulfilled expectations form larger structural patterns among the major characters. Henry IV, Falstaff, and the rebels are all old, guilty gluttons whose opportunistic appetites bring only sickness and death rather than fulfillment. Hal and John defeat the expectations of their elders, passively curb the voracity of their adversaries, and impose a new code of moral justice upon the ravished land. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 21:55:47 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0015 (De)Moralizing Shakespeare (90) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 15. Tuesday, 7 Aug 1990. Date: Tue, 07 Aug 90 21:36:00 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: De-Moralizing Shakespeare A good deal of Allan Bloom's 1987 bestseller, *The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students*, is of course nonsense (particularly regarding marital relations and the sexual revolution), but nonetheless he does make a few intriguing sociological observations. In particular, Bloom's initial premise has some bearing on the issues of moralizing Shakespeare (or perhaps "de-moralizing" him?) and critical preconceptions, which we've been discussing lately. Bloom argues that recent generations of university students have been increasingly conditioned to revere the virtues of socratic ignorance and relativism above all other values, and that students are becoming, more than anything else, "nice" (p 82). Intolerance, not error, has become the modern enemy, and "conflict is the evil we most want to avoid" (p 228) -- prompting Bloom to lament the passing of a world in which countries would go to war to assert the validity of their mythologies. (One of the things about his right-wing mentality I find hardest to swallow.) I find myself agreeing with Bloom (despite myself) that relativism seems to have become a paramount virtue, although I doubt this is so serious a calamity as he would have us believe. Socially-acceptable prejudice now tends to be directed against prejudice itself, in the bigot (although intolerance is also growing against other forms of arrogance, in polluters, TV evangelists, and of course elected public officials, all apparently with societal sanction). Our "new" (?) relativism may in part be responsible for the contemporary de-moralizing of Shakespeare. The assertion of morals, like the use of allegory, seems too simple and arrogant for the work of a great literary artist: Shakespeare has been declared the greatest writer in English, ergo his works cannot be seen to be allegorical nor rigidly moral. I am not claiming to be above this preference for relativism, of course: I often find straight allegory distinctly boring, and open didacticism somewhat distasteful -- and I find neither in Shakespeare. My picture of Shakespeare leaves little room for arrogance or prescription -- but then, my view is certainly from the safe distance of the twentieth century. Just as the "Moral Shakespeare" was created as a philosophically-dignified justification for his preservation and study, modern relativism may be forcing his works into another, equally inappropriate (equally appropriate?) mold. Moral single- mindedness is no longer philosophically dignified in the world of Einstein's relativity and Heisenberg's uncertainty. Instead, we interpret Shakespeare in the light of Norman Rabkin's (very convincing and exciting, incidentally) concept of "complementarity" (outlined in *Shakespeare and the Common Understanding*), observing the mutually exclusive perspectives fused throughout Shakespeare's work. (Such "relativity" or "complementarity" in fact seems to evolve from the unique strengths of theatrical art, with various interacting perspectives of multiple characters, but no overriding narrator.) But this relativism, this supposed freedom from preconceptions, may be itself be the critical preconception Stephen Matsuba inquires about. Deconstruction and complementarity are seductive, illuminating, and useful tools for literary critics, but are we trying too hard to turn one of the great literary minds of the sixteenth century into one of the twentieth? Relativism has (or should have) the advantage of continual self-examination -- but are we ignoring our relativist bias in the act of foisting such relativism on Shakespeare himself? I would like to think that we are not, and that complementarity and ambiguity, instability and negative capability, were essential to Shakespeare from the beginning. But, as Stephen points out, we also must continue to examine our motives for wishing this on him. Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 21:57:56 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0016 SHAKSPER Hiatus (42) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 16. Tuesday, 7 Aug 1990. Date: Tue, 07 Aug 90 21:34:44 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: SHAKSPER Hiatus This weekend (a long holiday weekend in Canada) saw a four-day hiatus in SHAKSPER mailings. This was not entirely the editor's fault; no submissions were sent either. I am not aiming to cultivate such lacunae, but unfortunately next week will see a still longer break as powers beyond my control draw me to a week-long series of Shakespearean plays and seminars in Stratford, Ontario. Technological solutions to conquer the geographical distance are available, but prohibitively expensive at the current time. From August 12th until August 19th, then, SHAKSPER will be somewhat more quiet than usual -- but thereafter rest assured that there will be no major interruptions, and with September should come new members and new energy. I make this announcement in advance, not to stifle discussion all this week, but to encourage it in the face of a temporary deadline. In looking over the SHAKSPER biographies, I see many members with a strong interest in pedagogy -- perhaps someone would like to pick up the gauntlet I (perhaps rather ineffectually) threw down last week. Many other fascinating threads have also been left hanging -- please try to pick up one which interests you. And feel free to send submissions even while I am away -- they will be distributed as soon as I return. Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 21:59:13 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0017 Electronic Shakespeares; Copyright on SHAKSPER Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 17. Tuesday, 7 Aug 1990. (1) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 90 12:34:29 CDT (29 lines) From: "Michael S. Hart" Subject: [Electronic Shakespeares; Copyright on SHAKSPER] (2) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 90 21:45:52 EDT (56 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Copyright on SHAKSPER (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 03 Aug 90 12:34:29 CDT From: "Michael S. Hart" Subject: [Electronic Shakespeares; Copyright on SHAKSPER] These are points which I am sure will be raised in the course of discussion which I would like to see reponses to, so I can gain a feel for directional propensities for the Shakespeare Electronic Conference. 1. I have heard of at least half a dozen electronic editions of the Bard, but don't have all the information on most of them. As director of an electronic discussion group named GUTNBERG@UIUCVMD.BITNET information, access, and direct links to SHAKESPEARE ON DISK and the RIVERSIDE text (commentaries not yet included). I would like to inquire about others I have heard about: one from Oregon (a Conan Doyle collection is from Oregon also, I hear), a Globe edition, a Kittredge, edition, etc. The responses will all be saved, and if desired placed into a digest. 2. Other discussion groups have gone to the trouble of copyrighting their collected notes (but apparently not the individual notes themselves) - what will be the case here? I have noted the requests for materials a few notes back not to be quoted, and also noted they were not prepared with the (c) symbol. Thank you for your interest, Michael S. Hart, Director, Project Gutenberg National Clearinghouse for Machine Readable Texts (2) --------------------------------------------------------------60---- Date: Tue, 07 Aug 90 21:45:52 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Copyright on SHAKSPER In response to Michael Hart's inquiry, I am here reprinting the relevant section of the SHAKSPER GUIDE, which every member should have received. Alterations or improvements in this policy will be considered if they are addressed to the editor. c. Quotation, Borrowing, and Use of the Membership List Material that appears on SHAKSPER may freely be quoted elsewhere (for non-commercial purposes) so long as the author, the conference (SHAKSPER), and the volume/date of first appearance are clearly stated. (The 3rd Edition of the MLA Handbook offers suggestions for sources such as 4.8.1, "Computer Software," and 4.8.2, "Material from a Computer Service," but neither is quite appropriate here.) All contributors to SHAKSPER implicitly agree to such borrowing unless a note to the contrary is appended to each contribution. Members are themselves responsible for the accuracy of the material they cite and for conformity to the conventions of the sources they use. The same is NOT true for academic papers, abstracts, or theses posted on the SHAKSPER fileserver (section "d" below): all copyright in these documents is retained by the author(s), unless permission to duplicate freely is explicitly appended to the item (for example, the author of announcements, calls for papers, etc., may wish the widest possible distribution). Members of SHAKSPER agree to seek permission directly from the author prior to lengthy quotation or duplication when such permission is not explicit. Quotations for scholarly (non-commercial) purposes can be made as from an unpublished manuscript or conference paper. (All documents submitted for the fileserver should include an explicit copyright notice and a clear outline of the author's stance on duplication.) The editor agrees not to circulate SHAKSPER's membership list beyond the membership itself (the "REVIEW SHAKSPER" command has been set as Private) and asks that other members likewise refrain from publishing it. Any such publication of the list or other use of it without the consent of the editor will be regarded as an abuse. Information contained in the biographical files should likewise not be circulated outside SHAKSPER without the subject's explicit permission. Ken Steele Editor, SHAKSPER University of Toronto or ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 08:58:45 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0018 O.B. Hardison, Jr. (265) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 18. Thursday, 9 Aug 1990. (1) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 90 08:48:30 EDT (22 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: O.B. Hardison, Jr. (2) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 22:01 EDT (224 lines) From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: O.B. Hardison (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 09 Aug 90 08:48:30 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: O.B. Hardison, Jr. It is with great regret that I must announce the passing of one of SHAKSPER's earliest and most enthusiastic proponents. O.B. Hardison had hoped to participate in this conference, and placed his name on the preliminary membership list earlier this year. The Bitnet community, and the scholarly community at large, will miss his critical insight and amiable wit. My appreciation to Hardy M. Cook for submitting the following transcriptions. Ken Steele Editor, SHAKSPER University of Toronto or (2) --------------------------------------------------------------231--- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 22:01 EDT From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: O.B. Hardison The following appreciation and obituary appeared in *The Washington Post* of Tuesday, August 7, 1990. Hardy M. Cook Bowie State University HMCOOK@BOE.TOWSON.EDU ----------------------------------- "The Essential Renaissance Man: Former Folger Director O.B. Hardison's Cheering Visions" By Sarah Booth Conroy O.B. Hardison Jr. thought it might be possible to become immortal. At least, he postulated, come the millennium, the "notion of morality" might be changed through the birth of "mind child," conceived and hatched by down-loading the spiritual essence of a person into a machine. He explained all this in a fashion more in the mode of a poet rather than a pontificator, in a wonderful book that became a bestseller, "Disappearing Through the Skylight -- Culture and Technology in the Twentieth Century." The book was published in February, the second of a projected trilogy, an effort to reconcile machines' way with humans. Everyone expected O.B., as everyone called him, to live forever. He was more than two months from his 62nd birthday and his years looked good on him. Hardison died Sunday, at Georgetown University Hospital, of a blood clot, a month after he found he had cancer. A few hours before he suddenly died, be gave ritual handshakes, made a number of witty observations and, as usual, cheered up everybody. He died the way he lived. In Who's Who, he called himself an educator. Washington Post writer Curt Supple, in his review of "Disappearing," called Hardison -- in an understatement -- Washington's "most prolific, intellectual ambidexter humanist/technophile." At the time of his death, Hardison was a professor at Georgetown University, who filled classes by making Shakespeare and Milton and the rest of Renaissance literature so fascinating that students would sooner miss "Twin Peaks" than his class. He was full of fire. He lit up the room with his torch of enthusiasm. He had a lust for the intellect -- a poem for every problem. He was a man the grand manner. When Hardison told a story or waved an arm, he called up the spirits -- you looked around for the ghost of Hamlet's father or the spirit Ariel of "The Tempest." Hardison also had about him a grace a Southern style of politeness, yet a bard's gift for the bawdy. He once said be and his wife Marifrancis's marriage was "founded on the hard rock of eternal lust." He came to Washington in 1969 to be the director of the Folger Library. Just about the first thing he said was "Why isn't anyone putting on plays in the theater?" And lo and behold, he hired Richmond Crinkley to do that very thing, and the Folger Theatre became the place to hear the speech, spoken trippingly on the tongue. Hardison had big, romantic ideas of what could be done. He saw the Folger as a place for a cultural court. He rejected a prissy grace- and-favor house, and instead moved into an old Victorian across the street from the Folger, where he could literally keep an eye on the place. Hardison, with Marifrancis and their six children, made the place into a 24-hour literary salon and a meeting-and-greeting place for everybody from medieval scholars to potters and musicians. No one really expected him to up and leave the Folger. But in 1983, he learned to use a computer and a Xerox machine so he didn't need a secretary anymore. And he'd raised $8.5 million to add to and recondition the Folger, including the Treasure Room and the new Reading Room. So he felt free to go -- he wanted the time to "write and think -- and to be a Bohemian, my secret proclivity." In the seven short years that he was granted, he did all those things. O.B. and Marifrancis kept up their hospitality with the groaning board and the provocative guest list. He amassed honorary degrees from seven educational institutions, served on dozens of boards, received medals of every metal spoke against textbook censorship and for a complicated concept that he called "A Tree, a Streamlined Fish, and a Self-Squared Dragon." He taught his computer to compose iambic pentameter -- "'not great iambic pentameter, but it scans for the most part," he said -- and to recite "Lycidas." He was a passionate defender of artistic freedom. In "Entering the Maze," the first book of his trilogy, he wrote: "Quality of art work is more important in the long run than its ideology. . . . There is probably no kind of art that has not seemed threatening to the established order at one time or another." Hardison was also a man who knew a hawk (a plasterer's tool) from a handsaw (a carpenter's implement). He liked to point out a picture frame that he made using a knot in the wood as a part of the design. He and his tribe years ago bought a country cottage near Syria, Va., without any plumbing (the brook served as a tub) or electricity (the family was good at lighting fires) and made it a mecca. Hardison wrote at the end of "Disappearing" of a new chrysalis for humans. "What will those shining constructs of silicon and gold and arsenic and geranium look like as they sail the spaces between worlds? They will be invisible, but we can try to imagine them even as fishermen on the other side of the mirror that is the water's surface. "They will be telepathic since they will hear with antennas. . . . They will not need sound to hear music or light to see beauty . . . . "Silicon life will be immortal. The farthest reaches of space will be accessible to it. For silicon beings, 100,000 light years will be as a day's journey on earth, or if they wish, as a refreshing sleep from which, when the sensors show the journey is over they will awaken with no sense of passage of time or -- what is the same thing -- with visions 'of what is past, or passing, or to come.'" Written on computer discs in his Dupont Circle row house is the third book of Hardison's triumphant trilogy. Even after Hardison learned, about a month ago, that be had cancer, he thought he had time to make the book ready to print out. Those of us who expected him to find the Holy Grail -- or the fountain of youth, the message from the universe, the eternal secret -- hope those final computer discs have been duplicated, printed out and secured in the safety deposit vault. For who knows? This last book may tell us that he figured out how to become immortal -- through the printed word and the memories of those whose lives he sprinkled with shining hope. -------------------------------- "O.B. Hardison Dies at 61; Was Head of Folger Library" By Richard Person O.B. Hardison, 61, a Georgetown University literature professor who served as head of the Folger Shakespeare Library from 1969 to 1983, died of cancer Aug. 5 at Georgetown University Hospital. He lived in Washington. Dr. Hardison was a native of San Diego. He received bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of North Carolina and a doctorate from the University of Wisconsin. He taught English literature at the University of North Carolina for 12 years before coming to Washington as Folger Library director in 1969. He retired from the Folger in 1983, and the next year he joined the faculty at Georgetown. He was a professor of English at the time of his death. He was the author of books on criticism, theater, English literature, poetry, the medieval world, the Renaissance and the modern relationship of culture to technology. He also contributed articles to journals such as Renaissance Quarterly, the Sewanee and Georgia reviews, the New York Review of Books, the New York Times and The Washington Post's Book World section. The Folger Library, an internationally known center of Shakespearean research, is administered by Amherst College. When Dr. Hardison took over its direction in 1961, it was primarily for scholars and known for its book collection. Dr. Hardison oversaw enormous expansion of its resources and opened the Library's doors to the general public. He helped establish the Folger Theater Group as a leading area cultural resource and established a popular series of poetry readings. He also introduced the Folger Consort, a group of musicians specializing in medieval and Renaissance offerings. He was instrumental in the formation of the Folger Institute of Renaissance and 18th Century Studies, oversaw the establishment of a docent program and saw the Shakespeare Quarterly make the Library its home. Over the years, he became as adept at fund-raising as he was in his more scholarly pursuits. The library's annual income increased from about $20,000 to more than $1 million annually. He left the institution with an endowment of more than $50 million. He also directed the campaign that raised $8.5 million for an expansion and physical plant improvement of the library. He told a Post reporter, after leaving the Folger, that his two proudest achievements were acquiring a first edition (1684) of Isaac Newton's "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" and getting the theater fireproofed. Before coming to Washington, Dr. Hardison had an enviable reputation as a writer and teacher. An authority on medieval and Renaissance history and literature, he was an expert on the life, time and work of John Milton and had been hailed by Time magazine as one of the country's outstanding college instructors. His first book, a volume of poetry entitled "Lyrics and Elegies," was published in 1958. His most recent book, published in 1989, was "Disappearing Through the Skylight -- Culture and Technology in the Twentieth Century." A combination of philosophy, literature, history and science, it was one in a series of books he was writing on man's history and evolution. Another in the series was "Entering the Maze: Identity and Change in Modern Culture," published by Oxford University Press in 1981. Other books included "Christian Rite and Christian Drama," published by Johns Hopkins University Press, "Praise and Eloquence in Renaissance Literary Theory" and "Praise in Renaissance Literature," which was an expansion of his doctoral dissertation. He also had been an associate editor of the Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Dr. Hardison was a past president of the Renaissance Society of America, the Shakespeare Association of America, and the Washington English-Speaking Union. He was a former chairman of the National Humanities Alliance. He was a member of Phi Beta Kappa and had been a Fulbright and Guggenheim fellow and a recipient of awards from the British and Italian governments. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 18:36:26 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0019 SHAKSPER Hiatus Reminder (34) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 19. Saturday, 11 Aug 1990. Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 18:29:49 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Hiatus Reminder Just a short reminder that the Shakespeare Electronic Conference will transmit no messages for the next eight days. Please feel free to make submissions as always; they will be delayed only a short while. The SHAKSPER Fileserver continues to be active, of course, and you can request files and programs from it as always (see your SHAKSPER GUIDE for further information). This week might be an opportunity to catch up on the papers stored there. Once again, my apologies for my unavoidable absence this week. Yours, Ken Steele Editor, SHAKSPER University of Toronto or ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Aug 90 19:33:36 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0020 SHAKSPER Returneth! (36) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 20. Sunday, 19 Aug 1990. Date: Sun, 19 Aug 90 19:26:00 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: SHAKSPER Hiatus Comes to an End Just a note to advise you all that I've returned from a busy week of seminars, interviews, and performances at the Stratford Festival, and that the Shakespeare Electronic Conference is now back on-line. I was very please to discover seven new member biographies and a number of subscription requests in my mail tonight, and the new members bring our total to 44. Once I've enjoyed at least one night's good sleep back at home, I'll try to write something more inspiring. In the meantime, please feel free to continue or begin discussions on any topic of interest to you. Thanks for your patience this past week -- and I promise it will not happen again (any time soon). Yours, Ken Steele Editor, SHAKSPER University of Toronto or ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Aug 90 19:39:44 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0021 Thomas Oakes, Ben Ross Schneider (37) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 21. Sunday, 19 Aug 1990. Date: Sun, 19 Aug 1990 09:55:06 EDT From: Abigail Young Subject: [Thomas Oakes, Ben Ross Schneider] I have a knotty little research problem which I shall be posting to REED-L, and was hoping you could pass on to SHAKSPER, since I am not signed on to it yet (although I would like to be). Here goes: We at REED are trying to identify a Shakespearean actor who is a little out of our period. His name is Thomas Oakes, and all that is really know of him are the following facts: 1) in 1792 he signed a lease as part of his purchase of the British Plate Glass Company in which he described his occupation as Skakespearean actor; 2) he lived while in London on Upper Wimpole Street; 3) the actor Garrick lent money to Oakes' company after he had acquired it. We'd be grateful for any further information anyone might know who was more conversant with the period than we are. Also, we have been told that there is an on-line index to the London Stage 1660-1800, but have been unable to find out where this is or whether it contains more data than the printed index: any leads on that, or the email address, if any, of its compiler, Ben Ross Schneider, would be gratefully received as well. Thanks for your help. Abigail ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 17:58:18 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0022 1991 SAA Conference in Vancouver (184) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 22. Monday, 20 Aug 1990. Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 17:44:13 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: 1991 SAA Conference in Vancouver [A more complete version of this announcement, with lengthy descriptions of each seminar and workshop, is now available on the SHAKSPER Fileserver as "VANCOUVR CONFERNC." SHAKSPEReans can obtain this file by issuing the command "TELL LISTSERV AT UTORONTO GET VANCOUVR CONFERNC SHAKSPER" or by mailing a message to LISTSERV@UTORONTO with the single line, "GET VANCOUVR CONFERNC SHAKSPER," as its contents. If you have tried both these approaches and still require assistance, contact the editor.] Conference Announcement / Call for Papers Shakespeare Association of America Vancouver Venue for 1991 Meeting Twenty-two workshops and research seminars will be among the offerings at the nineteenth annual meeting of the Shakespeare Association of America, 21-23 March 1991, in Vancouver, British Columbia. The Four Seasons Hotel will be the site of all workshops, seminars, and major sessions. Anthony Dawson (University of British Columbia) will serve as chair of the Local Arrangements Committee. Members of the SAA have a choice of two workshops and twenty research seminars scheduled for Thursday, Friday, and Saturday afternoons in Vancouver. Workshops allow members the opportunity to tailor existing skills or to develop new abilities in their careers as teachers, scholars, and contributors to theatrical endeavors. In order to promote an atmosphere most conducive to productive workshops, leaders of workshops may choose to close the sessions to auditors. Research seminars offer members an opportunity to develop and share their research on a topic with other scholars with similar interests. Every member of the SAA not already committed to take part in a major session of the program may participate in one workshop or research seminar. All registration forms must reach the SAA Administrative Offices no later than 15 September, 1990. WORKSHOPS 1. "Reading Performance." Miriam Gilbert (University of Iowa) 2. "Working with Actors on Shakespeare's Language." Ellen J. O'Brien (Guilford College) RESEARCH SEMINARS 3. "Shakespeare's Quartos: Text, Performance, Memory." Linda Anderson (Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University) Janis Lull (University of Alaska Fairbanks) 4. "Shakespeare's Prose." Jonas Barish (University of California, Berkeley) 5. "The London Stage, 1586-95." Herbert Berry (University of Saskatchewan) 6. "The Problem Plays in their Context." Lee Bliss (University of California, Santa Barbara) 7. "Shakespeare's Political Languages." Rebecca Bushnell (University of Pennsylvania) 8. "Reconstructing Shakespearean Character." Christy Desmet (University of Georgia) Richard Finkelstein (SUC at Geneseo) 9. "Feminist Readings of the Cross-Dressed Female." Evelyn Gajowski (University of California, Santa Cruz) Kay Stanton (California State University, Fullerton) 10. "(Re)-Discovering Shakespeare's Texts." David George (Urbana University) 11. "Teaching Editions of Shakespeare." Jay Halio (University of Delaware) 12. "Shakespeare and the English Church." Donna Hamilton (University of Maryland, College Park) 13. "Screening Shakespeare." Barbara Hodgdon (Drake University) 14. "Shakespearean Power and Punishment." Gillian Murray Kendall (Smith College) 15. "Elizabethan Historiography and the History Play." F.J. Levy (University of Washington) 16. "Dialogue in Shakespeare's Plays." Lynne Magnusson (University of Waterloo) 17. "Shakespeare and the New World." Katherine Eisaman Maus (University of Virginia) 18. "Shakespeare's Bastards." Mary Ann McGrail (Catholic University) 19. "1599." James Shapiro (Columbia University) 20. "Distinction." James Siemon (Boston University) 21. "Shakespearean Romance and Its Sources." Mihoko Suzuki (University of Miami) 22. "Entertainers on the Road in Early Modern England." Suzanne R. Westfall (Lafayette College) Paul Whitfield White (Baylor University) OPEN SUBMISSION PAPERS FOR VANCOUVER Short papers (10-12 pages, 20 minutes reading time) on any appropriate topic are welcomed for consideration for the 1991 program in Vancouver. All papers submitted will undergo a blind reading by a committee headed by a Trustee selected by the President. To be included in the open submission competition, members are asked to send a cover letter stating each essay's title and three copies of each paper to the SAA Administrative Offices *no later than 30 September*. Those who submit essays are asked to omit any identification on the essays themselves and to include a stamped, self-addressed envelope if they wish their papers to be returned. Winners of the open submission competitions will be asked to withdraw from other commitments on the program. 1990 MEMBERSHIP DUES For membership in the Shakespeare Association of America, contact: The Shakespeare Association of America Department of English Southern Methodist University Dallas, TX 75275 Annual dues are determined by yearly income, and assessed by the calendar year ($20-$50 US). SEMINAR AND WORKSHOP REGISTRATION S.A.A. Members may select either a workshop or a seminar session. *No one* may participate in more than one of these sessions. Please list your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choices. Those registration forms submitted without a range of choices may have to be assigned a session at random. The form must be returned to the S.A.A. by *15 September 1990*. [Adapted and condensed from the S.A.A. Bulletin, Vol. 14 No. 2, July 1990.] ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 19:51:47 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0023 SHAKSPER Member Biographies Update (23) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 23. Monday, 20 Aug 1990. Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 19:26:00 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: First SHAKSPER Biography File Complete The file SHAKSPER BIOGRAFY, now available on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, is the finalized version of the first biography file. (The biographies have reached over 1200 lines, a formidable filesize). Hereafter, additional member biographies will be added to subsidiary files, and this initial file will not be altered further. I have edited it to 65-character margins, so that it should now be readable on most machines. To get the latest version of the executable program file, the biography file, and information files, simply issue the command "GET BIOGRAFY PACKAGE SHAKSPER" as outlined in the SHAKSPER GUIDE. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 14:22:52 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: 1.0024 Thomas Oakes, Ben Ross Schneider (69) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 24. Tuesday, 21 Aug 1990. (1) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 08:41:00 EST (19 lines) From: "David Lasocki. Music Library. IUB" Subject: Thomas Oakes (2) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 14:14:38 EDT (29 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Ben Ross Schneider (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 08:41:00 EST From: "David Lasocki. Music Library. IUB" Subject: Thomas Oakes Thomas Oakes' biography is almost certainly to be found in Philip H. Highfill, Jr., Kalman A. Burnim & Edward A. Langhans, A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians, Dancers, Managers, and Other Stage Personnel in London 1660-1800 (Carbondale & Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1973- ). (The copy on our campus is in another library than the one I work in, and I don't have time to run over there today. If you don't have easy access to a copy, let me know.) Yours, David Lasocki Head of Public Services Music Library Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana [I have forwarded this message from the REED-L Discussion Group, where it originally appeared. KS] (2) --------------------------------------------------------------33---- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 14:14:38 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Ben Ross Schneider In response to Abigail's query, Ben Ross Schneider demonstrated his *London Stage* database on a PC at the 1990 SAA conference in Philadelphia last April. The entire database will ultimately fit on "thirteen or fourteen 3 1/2-inch disks, and the search time will be more like 18 minutes," according to his essay for the Computer Applications seminar. Fortunately, he also gives his address at the top of this paper: B.R. Schneider Lawrence University Appleton, WI 54912 bitnet: Hope this is of assistance. Yours, Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 15:23:21 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: 1.0025 Breaking the Ice... Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 25. Wednesday, 22 Aug 1990. Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 15:20:01 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Breaking the Ice There is a point of "critical mass" for electronic conferences, I suspect, at which the membership is sufficient to generate spontaneously a continuous flow of discussion. I don't, however, have any idea quite where that point is; doubtless it can be shifted up or down by innumerable factors, like perhaps the loquaciousness and contentiousness of its members, or the nature of its subject, or the season of the year. Although the warm weather is still with us, and the sunshine persuasively beckons us away from our terminals, September and another school year is about to begin. We could postpone conversation on SHAKSPER until after our August vacations, or after the chaos of September registration, or until the next forty would-be SHAKSPEReans have submitted their biographies, or indeed until well into next year -- but then we'd just have more of the sort of silence which smothers so many Bitnet discussion groups. The fact is, there are now almost fifty of us, and judging by our biographies, we share so many common interests that we should have to work very hard indeed to maintain such silence. If even two or three of us were in an elevator we'd have plenty to say to each other. Here on SHAKSPER, with members scattered from Alaska to Korea, from undergraduate to emeritus, and from poets to performers, we should have some truly fascinating conversations! Of course, first we have some proverbial ice to break, and while my wit is hardly the sharpest or the best propelled among this formidable group, I will venture an attempt. I'd like to outline some of the common interests I detect from among the biographies. Self-evidently all of us are sufficiently familiar with computing technology to have discovered Bitnet, and to have joined SHAKSPER. This does not mean that we all share the same degree of interest in computer applications to Shakespeare study, but at least we can all follow the conversation. I firmly believe that HUMANIST is the appropriate forum for discussing humanities computing, and definitely don't want to see the subject of SHAKSPER become limited to Shakespearean computing, but I for one would like to hear about the "tools of the trade" used by others in this conference. (Personally, I make regular use of the WordCruncher Riverside Shakespeare, King James Bible, and the TACT Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton. I am impressed by the CD-ROM Oxford English Dictionary, but cannot afford the necessary hardware just now.) It was also perhaps predictable that, SHAKSPEReans being drawn largely from educational institutions, we would share a strong interest in pedagogy. Most of us either teach or study Shakespeare in the classroom, and a number are explicitly interested in pedagogical methods. Just what *is* it that we *teach* when we "teach Shakespeare"? And to the students among us: what do students expect to *learn* when they enrol in a Shakespeare course? What basic background do undergraduates of the 1990s have in common, and what fundamentals are they lacking? How are videotapes, audio recordings, and performances best integrated into lectures, seminars, or tutorials? These are only a few of many many questions we could address. Surprisingly, SHAKSPER seems to include an inordinate number of textual scholars or bibliographers (and several more are soon to join). Is there a causal connection? Rather like computing technology, textual studies seem to change by the hour, and staying abreast of the latest scholarship is a never-ending struggle. What are the best sources for current information? How could we make SHAKSPER one of them? What have you read recently that we should all hear about? Is memorial reconstruction a ludicrous theory, or an inevitable conclusion? How much do we know, and how much will we never know, about Shakespeare's text? SHAKSPER also includes a number of medievalists, a couple of playwrights, librarians, and those interested in Shakespeare as a sociological phenomenon. It may not be possible to interest *all* the SHAKSPEReans *all* of the time, but if we begin parallel discussions on themes such as these, we'll all find something of interest and of value here. So first, read through the biography files (currently SHAKSPER BIOGRAFY and SHAKS-00 BIOGRAFY on the Fileserver) and get acquainted with the other members of the conference. Then, even though there are at least three other people in the world who are better qualified (there usually are), write a note about a Shakespearean topic that interests you and send it to SHAKSPER@utoronto. After all, we're all looking for an excuse to start a conversation... Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 14:17:38 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0026 The Electronic Bard (103) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 26. Friday, 24 Aug 1990. (1) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 19:12:24 EDT (29 lines) From: "Michael S. Hart" Subject: Re: 1.0025 Breaking the Ice... (2) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 10:11 EDT (13 lines) From: HDCHICKERING@amherst Subj: WordCruncher, TACT (3) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 13:35:25 EDT (39 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: WordCruncher Shakespeare, TACT (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 19:12:24 EDT From: "Michael S. Hart" Subject: Re: 1.0025 Breaking the Ice... I would like to hear more from Ken Steele about the TACT editions he mentioned. I am somewhat familiar with the others he referred to, and I would be happy to voice my opinions on them, when asked. As Ken is aware of, I am highly opinionated and willing to stick my neck out farther than most, though I am learning. I would like to hear about the errors found in the WC Riverside, as I have both the floppy and CDROM versions, and would like to get a set of corrections together which I can send to WordCruncher when they are ready for a second edition. I also can provide information about them and their products, for those who are interested. I am a combination Shakespearean and computer enthusiast, both inherited from my father, who was a Shakespeare professor and an avid hi-fi enthusiast. Therefore I grew up well versed in home electronics and in Shakespeare. From your perpective I am sure I will appear far better at computers than at the Bard, since I can build a 486 with ease, complete with opto-magnetic drives, etc., but my plays and poetry are not as well received. Please feel free to ask for advise on computers, and please forgive me if I ask too often for advice on Shakespeare. Thank you, Michael S. Hart (2) --------------------------------------------------------------20---- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 10:11 EDT From: HDCHICKERING@amherst Subj: WordCruncher, TACT As a newcomer to this game and a teacher of both Chaucer and Shakespeare, I'd like to ask what are the WordCruncher Riverside Shakespeare and the TACT Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton? Howell Chickering Amherst College (3) --------------------------------------------------------------37---- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 13:35:25 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: WordCruncher Shakespeare, TACT There have indeed been reports of many errors in the WordCruncher (ETC) electronic edition of the Riverside Shakespeare. I myself have compiled a list of approximately 500 erroneous words (i.e. mistranscriptions from the printed text, not simply inconsistencies in modernization or editorial errors). The WordCruncher people have a bounty system established for such errors, I understand -- those who report a sufficient number (unspecified) will receive free texts from ETC. I have sent the list to ETC, and once I have reformatted it I will post it on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, in case present or future members can make use of such a list. ETC has been very reluctant to discuss the release of new editions, but has also made it virtually impossible for users to (legally) correct errors in the texts themselves. TACT (Thematic Analysis and Concording of Texts) is a shareware text retrieval and analysis program developed by Lidio Presutti and John Bradley of the University of Toronto Computing Services ( and ) and distributed by the Centre for Computing in the Humanities, University of Toronto (). The program was distributed free of charge to registered members of the 1989 ICCH/ALLC "Dynamic Text" conference in Toronto, and a steady stream of upgrades have been released ever since. It is more sophisticated and complex than WordCruncher, but it also runs into memory allocation problems on particularly large texts. Contact the CCH with questions about availability or purchase of the program or its texts. I will try to obtain or compose a more comprehensive note on TACT and the textbases, and once done it will be posted here. Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 14:39:48 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0027 New SHAKSPER Members (101) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 27. Friday, 24 Aug 1990. Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 14:28:46 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: New SHAKSPER Members My initial plan was to post new member biographies to SHAKSPER as the members joined. That way, however, madness lies (for me, at least, if not for everyone else!). Instead, I will attempt to keep the BIOGRAFY files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver up-to-date, and leave it to individual members to retrieve the latest volume (or the BIOGRAFY PACKAGE) as it suits them. At the same time, I still consider it important that we recognize just who our fellow members are, and knowing networkers as I do, that cannot depend upon retrieval of a file from the Fileserver. The compromise, then, is one taken by a number of other Bitnet discussion groups also: I will periodically post the membership list so that current members will notice when a familiar face has joined the fold. Herewith, then, the current membership list, which has just passed fifty members. Ken Steele University of Toronto SHAKSPER Electronic Conference - created 16 July 90 (Alphabetically by Node Name) FFJL@ALASKA Janis Lull HDCHICKERING@AMHERST Howell D. Chickering GW0F@ANDREW.CMU.EDU Gary Waller HMCOOK@BOE.TOWSON.EDU Hardy M. Cook EL407007@BROWNVM Bill Sklar WOMWRITE@BROWNVM Elaine Brennan jim_sexton@CC.SFU.CA Jim Sexton TOM@CS.FAU.EDU Tom Horton WRIGHTS@CUA Stephen Wright MCCARTHY@CUAVAXA William J. McCarthy SURCC@CUNYVM Steven Urkowitz GWP@DIDO.CALTECH.EDU G.W. Pigman ELIASON@GACVAX1 Eric Eliason NEUMAN@GUVAX Michael Neuman WILDER@GUVAX Jim Wilderotter GY945C@GWUVM Matthew B. Gilmore mason@HABS11.ENET.DEC.COM Gary F. Mason DORENKAMP@HLYCROSS John H. Dorenkamp CSC3CSB@HOFSTRA Chris Backa JONGSOOK@KRSNUCC1 Jongsook Lee Thomas.H.Luxon@MAC.DARTMOUTH.EDU Tom Luxon DS001451@NDSUVM1 Ray Wheeler MACGOWAN@NISC.SRI.COM Douglas MacGowan A10PRR1@NIU Philip Rider FLANNAGA@OUACCVMB Roy Flannagan JODONNEL@PENNSAS.UPENN.EDU James O'Donnell sinowitz@PILOT.NJIN.NET Jonah Sinowitz PJP23@PITTVMS Paul J. Pival RABRAMS@PORTLAND Rick Abrams SBYATES@PUCC Stan Yates AUDRA@QCVAXA Audra_Graber & Fred_Herman SDMGLA@RITVAX.ISC.RIT.EDU Stanley D. McKenzie GA0708@SIUCVMB Herbert S. Donow HART@UIUCVMD Michael S. Hart MH@UMNACVX Michael Hancher TSC@UMNACVX Thomas Clayton ENG003@UNOMA1 Judith E. Boss FAC0287@UOFT01 Paul Fritz CREAMER@URVAX Kevin J.T. Creamer YOUNG@UTOREPAS Abigail Ann Young MAINTLSV@UTORVM Steve Younker HAG@UVMADMIN Hope Greenberg NMILLER@VAX1.TRINCOLL.EDU Norman Miller shand@VENUS.YORKU.CA Skip Shand KKM7M@VIRGINIA Karen Kates Marshall KSTEELE@VM.EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Ken Steele mccarty@VM.EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Willard McCarty WARKENT@VM.EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Germaine Warkentin DS014805@VM1.NODAK.EDU Hardin Aasand MATSUBA@WRITER.YORKU.CA Stephen Matsuba BOLTON@ZODIAC.RUTGERS.EDU Whitney Bolton * * Country Subscribers * ------- ----------- * ??? 17 * Canada 3 * Korea 1 * USA 30 * * Total number of "concealed" subscribers: 3 * Total number of users subscribed to the list: 51 (non-"concealed" only) * Total number of local node users on the list: 0 (non-"concealed" only) * Total number of countries represented: 4 (non-"concealed" only) * Total number of nodes represented: 45 (non-"concealed" only) * ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 18:08:19 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0028 More Electronic Bard (18) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 28. Friday, 24 Aug 1990. Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 13:29 CST From: Subject: WC Riverside and TACT textbases I also am interested in knowing more about these programs, but I would further appreciate having some Shakspearean discuss the pros and cons of WC Riverside versus the Oxford Shakespeare. I've been considering a purchase of the Oxford; am I after the wrong one? Why? Judy Boss eng003@unoma1 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 16:17:20 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: 1.0029 Electronic Editions (105) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 29. Monday, 27 Aug 1990. (1) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 12:20 EDT (11 lines) From: BOLTON@ZODIAC.BITNET Subject: Texts and text-analysis programs (2) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 16:10:50 EDT (76 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Riverside vs Oxford Shakespeare (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 12:20 EDT From: BOLTON@ZODIAC.BITNET Subject: Texts and text-analysis programs Recent questions in SHAKSPER sought information on WordCruncher, Micro- OCP, the electronic Riverside, Oxford Text Archive, and Oxford electronic edition. Members might wish to see a review essay about these and related topics to appear in the current volume of *Computers and the Humanities*. Whitney Bolton (2) --------------------------------------------------------------80---- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 16:10:50 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Riverside vs Oxford Shakespeare I've been restraining myself from pouncing on the Riverside/Oxford Shakespeare question, but my restraint has finally collapsed and here I go... I think there are two very different issues involved in making the selection between the two: one is software-oriented, and the other is textual. The Oxford Electronic Shakespeare is essentially an ASCII text tagged with codes for use with Oxford's own Micro-OCP (Oxford Concordance Package). Tagging includes (correct me if I'm wrong) matters such as prose/verse, speaker, play, and act/scene/line. The Riverside Shakespeare text is available only from ETC (Electronic Text Corporation) for use with ETC's WordCruncher text retrieval software. Without WordCruncher, you cannot view, use, or even *install* the Riverside texts. On the other hand, Oxford's ASCII texts can be used, with a little modification, under WordCruncher, Micro-OCP, TACT, WordPerfect, or whatever you choose (because they are ASCII texts, not encrypted textbase files like ETC's). So in terms of publisher attitude, Oxford wins hands down. (There are non-legal ways to circumvent ETC's encryption, if you own a copy of WordCruncher anyway. Using the Oxford texts with something other than Micro-OCP may also be in contravention of the user's agreement -- I haven't seen it.) WordCruncher and Micro-OCP are, however, fundamentally and crucially different text-retrieval/analysis programs. WordCruncher is a slick, straightforward interactive concordance package. Micro-OCP is based on the older mainframe OCP, and is nowhere near interactive -- it requires a separate run through the entire text for every query. Micro-OCP, however, can handle multiple tags (speaker, act/scene/line, etc) whereas WordCruncher, designed especially for use with Biblical texts (Book, Chapter, and Verse), accepts only three hierarchical levels of tags (Play, Act/Scene, and Line). WordCruncher, then, will give you faster and more convenient results, but is capable of less complex queries than Micro-OCP. (And incidentally, TACT is a shareware compromise between the two.) As I understand it, then, the Oxford Shakespeare texts could be used with WordCruncher if the user so desired, but the reverse is definitely *not* true. Comparing WordCruncher and Micro-OCP is a lot like comparing apples and applesauce -- they are distinctly different packages and many people use both, for different purposes. The more interesting issue, for me at least, is the choice of *text*. The ETC WordCruncher text is the Riverside Shakespeare, edited by G. Blakemore Evans in the early 1970s. The Micro-OCP text derives from the actual electronic printer's copy for the Oxford Shakespeare, edited by Stanley Wells, Gary Taylor, et al. in the early 1980s. The electronic Shakespeare you choose to purchase should reflect the paper text you prefer (or line references will always be a little out of sync in prose passages). Here it begins to get interesting. I'm caught in between the accepted, conventional, Riverside Shakespeare from which my professors always worked, and the radical, new Oxford Shakespeare which may or may not become the new standard. I respect the textual scholarship which was poured into the Oxford Shakespeare, but when I want two texts of *King Lear* I turn to the Quarto and Folio facsimiles. (And when I need electronic versions, I turn to the T.H. Howard-Hill Quarto and Folio texts available from the Oxford University Computing Services Electronic Text Archive -- which were used for Howard-Hill's Oxford Shakespeare Concordances, and were ultimately the basis for the new edition). What texts do the rest of you use for Shakespeare? The New Arden, Riverside, Oxford, Penguin, or something else? Do you use different editions for scholarship and for teaching? How many members of SHAKSPER currently use an electronic Shakespeare at all? Perhaps we can conduct an informal survey right here on Bitnet. Yours, Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 16:38:27 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0030 Stylometry Analysis Abstract (34) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 30. Monday, 27 Aug 1990. Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 16:31:46 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Stylometry Analysis added to SHAKSPER Fileserver [Following are the opening paragraphs of a dissertation abstract recently added to the SHAKSPER Fileserver and available for your retrieval at any time. Issue the interactive command, "TELL LISTSERV@utoronto GET STYLOMET FLETCHER SHAKSPER" or consult your SHAKSPER GUIDE for further information. KS] Summary: The Effectiveness of the Stylometry of Function Words in Discriminating between Shakespeare and Fletcher Thomas Bolton Horton A number of recent successful authorship studies have relied on a statistical analysis of language features based on function words. However, stylometry has not been extensively applied to Elizabethan and Jacobean dramatic questions. To determine the effectiveness of such an approach in this field, language features were studied in twenty-four plays by Shakespeare and eight by Fletcher. The goal was to develop procedures that might be used to determine the authorship of individual scenes in _The Two Noble Kinsmen_ (TNK) and _Henry VIII_ (H8) . . . ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 19:20:38 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: 1.0031 WordCruncher Shakespeare Errors (100) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 31. Monday, 27 Aug 1990. Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 19:08:51 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Errors in the WordCruncher Riverside Shakespeare Following is a listing of the approximately 70 typographical errors introduced in the Riverside Electronic Shakespeare released by Electronic Text Corporation for use with their WordCruncher text retrieval software. (My previous estimate was indeed including illogical variant spellings, and editorial errors originating in the printed edition.) Even if you are not a user of this text, the errors are occasionally intriguing as examples of scribal errors made by modern typists, editors, or scanners faced with a Shakespearean (though modernized) text. This list is almost certainly not a complete error listing, but all the errors in this list have been verified through comparison with the printed version of the Riverside Shakespeare, edited by G. Blakemore Evans. Please report any errors in this error listing (we're all only human...) to the editor. If a more recent release of the WordCruncher Shakespeare has corrected these errors, please advise of that also. The concentration of errors in italic stage directions, minim errors, and in particular difficulties with faintly printed letters in the paper edition, all suggest to me that this text was scanned in from paper copy. In a number of cases, e's and c's are interchanged, as are c's and t's. The following listing is based on the WordCruncher Word Frequency file, therefore capitalization and italicization have been ignored. The number in the first column represents the number of times the word appears in error. References can be supplied upon request, but any user of the WordCruncher Shakespeare can locate these instantly using the Word List. After the asterisk, corrections from the printed edition have been supplied. Any SHAKSPEReans who have discovered errors in addition to these are asked to submit them to the editor for addition to this file. In addition, you may want to contact ETC directly to claim credit for discovering the errors. (This list has already been forwarded to them.) Be sure to verify against the printed edition first, however -- many apparent errors originated there. This file will remain permanently posted on the SHAKSPER Fileserver (in continually-updated condition) for retrieval by all members of this conference. For the most recent file, issue the interactive command, "TELL LISTSERV@utoronto GET RIVERSID ERRORS SHAKSPER" or consult your SHAKSPER GUIDE for further instructions. Ken Steele University of Toronto Editor, SHAKSPER 1 accend * (attend) 1 adenier * (a denier) 1 aeuvres * (oeuvres) 1 aflliction * (affliction) 1 afllictions * (afflictions) 1 aflourish * (a flourish) 1 antiquiry * (antiquity) 2 arrand * (errand) 1 arrouse * (arouse) 1 aw'ay * (away) 1 bitti'rest * (bitt'rest) 1 blant * (Blunt) 1 briefiness * (briefness) 1 buming * (burning) 1 condenining * (condemning) 1 contaur * (Centaur) 1 conved * (convert) 1 counterfieit * (counterfeit) 1 discases * (diseases) 1 A ediles * (Aediles) 1 espeially * (especially) 1 fisherment * (fishermen) 1 fo'rget * (forget) 1 follwers * (followers) 1 forsworn'on * (forsworn "on) 1 fourish * (flourish) 1 fute * (fate) 1 futher * (father) 1 glau * (glou) 1 grow'ing * (growing) 1 hereabouts'a * (hereabouts 'a) 1 influenece * (influence) 1 jad * (lad) 1 jaquenetra * (jaquenetta) 1 kinsmam * (kinsman) 1 kugby * (rugby) 1 lavinin * (lavinia) 1 mardion * (mardian) 1 mistressess * (mistresses) 1 montagaes * (montagues) 1 montugue * (montague) 1 n'or * (nor) 1 norfulk * (norfolk) 1 norwecian * (norwegian) 1 o'erwom * (o'erworn) 1 ofmouth * (of mouth) 1 oftender * (of tender) 1 oftime * (of time) 1 partally * (partially) 1 philome I, * (philomel) 1 physican * (physician) 1 pricess * (princess) 1 quilty * (guilty) 1 rememeb'red * (rememb'red) 1 redeem'dfrom * (redeem'd from) 1 scornfolly * (scornfully) 1 seators * (senators) 1 servingme * (servingman) 1 slad'rous * (sland'rous) 1 soldlers * (soldiers) 1 sothsayer * (soothsayer) 2 strengh * (strength) 1 suthwell * (southwell) 1 themost * (the most) 1 theyself * (thyself) 1 timn * (tim) 1 know thout * (know'st how thou) 1 together'tis * (together 'tis) 1 trmpet * (trumpet) 1 th, unsisting * (th'unsisting) [End of error listing as of August 27, 1990. KS] ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 11:10:46 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0032 TACT Description by Developers (89) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 32. Tuesday, 28 Aug 1990. Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 10:00:21 EDT From: John Bradley Subject: A TACT description TACT. A shareware program for MS/PC-DOS (vers. 1.2) that assists textual analysis by retrieving segments of text according to specified word forms and by displaying the results in graphs, lists and tables. TACT consists of four main programs: MAKBAS and MERGEBAS, which create the textual database from a raw text; TACT itself, the inquiry program, which works with the textual database and both creates and maintains a separate database for the categories that the user has created; and COLLGEN, which searches a database and outputs all phrases that occur more than a specified number of times. The system has in part been inspired by John B. Smith's ARRAS, to whom grateful acknowledgement is extended for his past encouragement. The system also expects text encoding such as used for both Oxford Concordance Program and WordCruncher but does not support SGML-like encoding yet. Users begin with a stable text, encode it and then run MAKBAS against the encoded text to produce the database. With TACT they can then retrieve segments of text according to word form, with or without `wildcards' (including character classes and other features of regular expressions). Words may be retrieved by frequency or similarity to a given string, or according to categories (collections of word-forms that are labelled by the user with a metatextual name, representing, for instance, themes or any other conceptual feature recognized by the user). Categories -- the name belongs to John B. Smith -- may be constructed of categories, so that hierarchical structures or significant conjunctions can be represented. Requests for character-strings can specify user labels or codes that identify their their location, for example, the title of work, chapter heading, speech, speaker, stanza, etc. TACT can also search for word forms by co-occurrence or adjacency and can employ Boolean operators. Search requests may be stored in ASCII rule files, which can in part handle the problem of lemmatization. Text can be displayed as plain text, KWIC (keyword-in-context) segments, simple distribution graphs (showing how the occurrence of a set of locations are distributed through the text, or among various structural divisions), or as an index showing only a list of locations where the event occurred, with a one-line context. The displays in TACT are linked so that, for example, the user can go directly from a position in a distribution graph to the text it represents. A recent display can show all collocates to the selected positions in the text -- with collocates ordered by their Z-score. The system is multilingual and supports the extended ASCII character set of the IBM PC. With tools that extend the character set displays on EGA screens (e.g., the Duke Language Toolkit, or the screen and keyboard translation portion of AcademicFont), it can handle languages such as Greek and Old English, but not Hebrew, Arabic and languages with ideographic characters such as kanji, by allowing for proper alphabetization, convenient keyboard entry, and printing on devices that require special `escape codes' to produce non-ASCII characters -- even if these sequences are different from those that would be used to enter the character from the keyboard, or display it on screen. Finally, TACT includes a record and playback facility so that a user can save for automatic replay a given session with the program. Developers: John Bradley and Lidio Presutti University of Toronto Computing Services (UTCS), Room 201, 4 Bancroft Ave., Toronto, Ont. M5S 1A1, Canada. (416) 978--3995; BRADLEY @ VM.UTCS.UTORONTO.,CA (Bradley). (416) 978--5130; LIDIO @ VM.UTCS.UTORONTO.CA (Presutti). FAX: (416) 978--7159. Supported by IBM Canada. They will answer questions and welcome suggestions for new features. Vendor: TACT Distribution, Centre for Computing in the Humanities, Robarts Library, Room 14297A, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. M5S 1A5, Canada. Attn: Elke Rudman. CCH @ UTOREPAS.BITNet. Distribution at cost: $30 Can or $25 US for vers. 1.2 and a printed, bound manual. Non-commercial users are welcome to distribute copies of the program freely and without permission from the developers. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 08:16:52 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0033 WordCruncher Riverside Shakespeare (156) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 33. Wednesday, 29 Aug 1990. (1) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 21:01:00 EDT (24 lines) From: KRAFT@PENNDRLS.UPENN.EDU Subject: Riverside Shakespeare (2) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 15:00:23 EDT (38 lines) From: "Michael S. Hart" Subject: Re: 1.0029 Electronic Editions (105) (3) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 16:03:43 EDT (8 lines) From: "Michael S. Hart" Subject: Re: SHK 1.0026 The Electronic Bard (103) (4) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 07:54:38 EDT (58 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: WordCruncher Riverside Shakespeare (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 21:01:00 EDT From: KRAFT@PENNDRLS.UPENN.EDU Subject: Riverside Shakespeare Thanks for the good note. No question that most of those errors are due to scanning, and could have been picked up with a regular spell-checking procedure. One item in your note bothers me: "Be sure to verify against the printed edition first, however -- many apparent errors originated there." Does this mean that you have another list of errors that are in the printed edition? If so, they also need to be corrected in the electronic version, it seems to me. True, someone should be keeping track of such items, since the printed edition is the starting point. But I hope we agree that for most users, we want as correct as possible an electronic version, even where the printed base is in error. That's how we have approached the biblical texts at CCAT (e.g. there are a dozen or so typos in the published Greek Septuagint on which our text is based, and we have corrected them, and documented the corrections). Readings that are not clear errors, of course, are another matter. Bob Kraft (2) --------------------------------------------------------------60---- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 15:00:23 EDT From: "Michael S. Hart" Subject: Re: 1.0029 Electronic Editions (105) re: ETC Riverside vs Oxford Modern Language Edition I have been in contact with both ETC and Oxford and have the following to report: ETC had expressed quite an interest in collecting errors for correction in upcoming editions (you CAN correct them yourself if you have WordCruncher BUT it will take a little CPU time). ETC may also give you a free product if they like your corrections, hence the statement that you may wish to inform them directly of errors at 1-800-234-0546. If you have their floppy version, you can get a new copy with corrections at no charge. If you have difficulty with this, please let me know. Oxford was much less forward about corrections, as was NeXT (who gives away the Oxford etext with their machines). I not only got the impression they didn't care about fixing errors, but also that they most certainly were not about to hand out anything to those who found them (perhaps in the vein of those who intentionally place errors in their texts for ammunition in perceived future copyright lawsuits - I have yet to hear of a conviction). As far as utility goes, I am not familiar with OCP, but I have hacked out a simple method for using the ETC. Rather than searching so much by act/line, I just type in the text I am looking for and watch the results. After only a few words, the number of possible choices is less than half a dozen, and they can all be displayed on the screen simultaneously. From there, the down arrow key highlights, and c/r takes you to the full text, which can be moved through at your leisure. Both search methods have their values, but I can't see why Ken wanted more than three levels in ETC, since that would do play, act and then line. Elaboration would possibly help. Thank you for your interest, Michael S. Hart, Director, Project Gutenberg National Clearinghouse for Machine Readable Texts (3) --------------------------------------------------------------16---- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 16:03:43 EDT From: "Michael S. Hart" Subject: Re: SHK 1.0026 The Electronic Bard (103) I spoke with ETC about correcting errors. They told me I could, so I don't think they have any legal objections. Michael S. Hart (4) --------------------------------------------------------------62---- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 07:54:38 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: WordCruncher Riverside Shakespeare A quick round-up of answers. As Bob Kraft observes, I did suggest that "errors" should be verified against the printed edition of the Riverside Shakespeare. This was primarily to guard against a problem I found continually: apparent misspellings are often deliberate (especially in dialect passages, see for instance the lines of Dr. Caius in *The Merry Wives of Windsor*). The close to 500 instances I found troublesome were cases of illogical variant spellings, which however were deliberately chosen by the editor of the paper edition, Blakemore Evans. *I* would alter them in an edition, but that would no longer be the Riverside edition, would it? In response to Michael Hart's question, there are many reasons for wishing for more (non-hierarchical) tagging levels in WordCruncher. At the "Dynamic Text" ALLC-ICCH conference in Toronto, the WordCruncher representatives promised some such capability for the next release of the software (no word yet). Rather than simply Play, Act/Scene, and Line, it would be nice to be able to assess results on the distribution screen by speaker, or by prose/verse distinction. When one finds 3,000 occurrences of the word "Love", for instance, it would be valuable to see just how many of those are spoken by Juliet, by Romeo, or by Mercutio, for example. It might also be helpful in certain circumstances to be able to ascertain automatically whether "eyen" ever occurs in Shakespeare's prose (it doesn't, only in poetry and only in rhyming couplets as the rhyme word). There might be additional levels one would like with the Riverside Shakespeare; unquestionably I would like additional levels in WordCruncher for dealing with the old-spelling Quarto and Folio texts of Shakespeare. Here, I would like to be able to evaluate the distribution of punctuation marks by compositor as well as Act/Scene, by signature or gathering as well as by play. The fact is, as WordCruncher is currently designed, non-hierarchical divisions (like speaker, which occur randomly throughout the text rather than all together at one location) cannot be dealt with at all! As for the legality of correcting one's own copy of the WordCruncher Shakespeare, the license agreement which accompanies the diskettes states that "You may NOT: 1. Modify any part of this text in any way, without the prior written permission of ETC. ... 3. Decode or otherwise reverse engineer the encryption of the text. 4. Transfer major portions of the text to a DOS Text File or to a printer." This would suggest that ETC does not consider it a legal activity to print the text to an ASCII file, correct errors, and re-encode it with IndexETC (although this is the only procedure I can see to correct errors in the texts). The same document makes it clear that it is illegal to use the texts with any software other than WordCruncher. It may be that all of this, and the intimidating legalese message put on-screen at any attempt to print a large passage to disk, is just so much empty rhetoric and that ETC does not mind error-correction. I would not expect a public admission from the company, however. Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 08:20:11 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0034 Query: Shakespeare's Will (21) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 34. Wednesday, 29 Aug 1990. Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 19:55 EST From: "Blondeness: Not just a colour, but an attitude!" Subject: Shakespeare's Will If anyone can put forth a reasonable theory for the question of why Shakespeare, in his will, left only the second best bed to his wife, it would be much appreciated. I am doing research for a paper on the importance of women in the Elizabethan family, and would like to use this as an example, but unfortunately I can't find a reasonable answer. ANY theories will be welcomed! Even silly ones at this point!!!! [Jeannette M. Schaffrath, ] ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 19:57:58 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0035 Compositor Stints & WordCruncher (82) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 35. Wednesday, 29 Aug 1990. (1) Date: 29 August 1990, 12:27:17 EDT (21 lines) From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: [Compositor Stints] (2) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 19:41:04 EDT (42 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Compositor Stints in Shakespearean Quarto & Folio Texts (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 August 1990, 12:27:17 EDT From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: [Compositor Stints] Dear Ken, I was wondering (and you can print this on Shaksper if you like) how you were identifying compositors throughout the Shakespeare texts, that you would be able to encode the end of one compositor's stint and the beginning of another? Perhaps with the First Folio that is possible, but has enough testing been done on all the various quartos so that you can say for certain this compositor stopped here and this other one began? How do you differentiate between a compositor's stint and a gathering, especially if they are either connected or disassociated by the method of composition? I may be speaking out of ignorance of the current state of bibliographical knowledge of Shakespeare's texts, but I would like to know how many tests are necessary before a compositor can be identified for certain. In my own work on *Paradise Lost*, I am all but sure that at least three compositors set the 1674 text, but pinning each down is very difficult--and the problems of a non-dramatic text composed and printed in the late 17th century are quite different from those of a dramatic text printed, say, in 1595. Roy Flannagan (2) --------------------------------------------------------------46---- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 19:41:04 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Compositor Stints in Shakespearean Quarto & Folio Texts Roy Flannagan is not misinformed about the state of Shakespearean textual scholarship; although a great deal has been done in terms of compositorial attribution, particularly in the First Folio, a great deal also remains to be done. I for one have always been somewhat critical of compositor attribution studies: there is a circularity in logic which troubles me. Stints are identified based on consistent orthographic tendencies (for example), and then orthographic tendencies are identified by stint. This is of course an oversimplification, and in practice much that is useful comes from compositor studies, but at root something seems strangely illogical about it all. I do think, however, that computer analysis can tell us a great deal about compositorial stints. In the case of the Folio texts, one could begin by accepting the current state of knowledge (as outlined in, say, the Oxford Shakespeare). Computer analysis of, for example, distributions of particular spelling tendencies, punctuation habits, error rates, etc. would then help support or challenge these original stint identifications. Ideally, it would be possible to alter the stint breaks and compare results -- but much faster hardware would be required than even my 386. Ultimately, software could be devised to compare all possible divisions of compositorial labour and assess their relative likelihood -- perhaps a compositorial attribution process much like the authorial attribution studies already being done. For the moment, it is simply an intriguing exercise to be able to subdivide results from a Shakespeare textbase, either by Play, scene, speaker, compositor, verse/prose, italic/roman, inner/outer forme, English/French/Latin, date of publication, date of composition, printer, publisher, etc etc etc. What one might find by doing so is difficult to estimate... but one would be much more likely to find anything than when simply faced with stacks of paper facsimiles. WordCruncher is, in all likelihood, not the best software engine to drive such research, either, but it is the most generally-available and user-friendly program I have yet seen. Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 21:00:47 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0036 The Second-Best Bed (84) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 36. Wednesday, 29 Aug 1990. Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 20:57:42 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: The Second-Best Bed As part of my bourgeois souvenir hunt in Stratford Ontario this month, I picked up a facsimile of the Shakespeare will, which was overpriced but I see already proves useful. Quite clearly Shakespeare's concern in this document was with posterity: at least two-thirds of the will is spent providing alternatives should certain family lines end without issue. In an interlineated addition halfway down the final page of the will (the will has a number of such interlineations, crossed-out lines, etc.), just before bequeathing his "broad silver gilt bole" to his daughter Judith, Shakespeare makes the infamous bequest: "Item, I gyve unto my wief my second best bed with the furniture" (i.e. the bed linens and draperies, not any additional "furniture" in our sense of the word). This is the *only* mention of Shakespeare's wife in the will, and it is so clearly an afterthought and so unemotional as to embarrass bardolaters and Shakespeare scholars alike. Undoubtedly the most reliable and authoritative single source of biographical information on Shakespeare is Samuel S. Schoenbaum's *William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life* (or for those of us without the resources of a major research library, *William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life*), New York: Oxford UP, 1975 (or 1977). Schoenbaum discusses the will very thoroughly, on pages 297-306 (Compact ed.). Schoenbaum slyly remarks that "His will has given rise to even more discussion and debate than the marriage license bond." One popular theory about the second-best bed has always been that Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway were ill-suited for each other. The shotgun wedding, closely followed by the birth of first one child and then twins, and Shakespeare's apparent retreat to London (and the Dark Lady of the Sonnets?), might indeed suggest a faltering relationship with his wife -- and the insult of merely the second-best bed merely cements this theory. Malone was indignant that Shakespeare cut off Anne, "not indeed with a shilling, but with an old bed." The more generally-received opinion today, of course, is more generous to Shakespeare. Schoenbaum suggests that "no specific provision was needed" for Anne: "English common law, [Charles] Knight triumphantly disclosed, guaranteed the widow a life interest of one third in her husband's estate, as well as residence in the family domicile." It is also possible that the best bed at New Place was reserved for guests, and that the second-best bed was the one "rich in matrimonial associations." Schoenbaum observes that similar provisions, of the second-best bed to the wife, occur in the will of William Palmer of Leamington, and that Francis Russell, 2nd Earl of Bedford, bequeathed his best bed not to his wife but to his daughter. The final word, however, is ambiguous: Schoenbaum summarizes, "Hence our choice between cynicism and sentiment. The latter surely affords the more attractive option, but this is a matter that can be no more than inferentially resolved." And the inference, clearly, must be made from a careful study of Shakespeare's entire life; balancing the pseudo-autobiography of the sonnets against what evidence we have for his strong ties and regular visits to Stratford even at the height of his career in London. Sorry, I couldn't bring myself to give you a silly answer, although that would doubtless have been much more entertaining. Do seek out Schoenbaum's biography -- it's a wonderful and informative read straight through. Ken Steele University of Toronto Other Sources suggested by Schoenbaum: Elaine W. Fowler, "The Earl of Bedford's 'Best Bed'," *Shakespeare Quarterly* 18 (1967): 80. Anon., *A Brief Discourse... of the Laudable Customs of London.* London, 1584. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 16:40:20 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0037 Second-Best Beds (Continued...) (66) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 37. Thursday, 30 Aug 1990. (1) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 16:22:01 EDT (11 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Second-Best Bed (Continued) (2) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 21:10:55 EDT (11 lines) From: Hardin Aasand Subject: Re: SHK 1.0034 Query: Shakespeare's Will (21) (3) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 11:33:25 EDT (21 lines) From: Steve Urkowitz Subject: Re: SHK 1.0034 Query: Shakespeare's Will (21) (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 16:22:01 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Second-Best Bed (Continued) With my apologies, I attach two responses to the "second-best bed" question which did not reach me in time for last night's digest. Ken Steele University of Toronto (2) --------------------------------------------------------------18---- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 21:10:55 EDT From: Hardin Aasand Subject: Re: SHK 1.0034 Query: Shakespeare's Will (21) Re: Shakespeare's "second best bed" for Anne Hathaway. I have heard that the second best bed would indeed be appropriate since it was the marriage bed rather than the "guest bed," also the "first" best bed. Does that sound logical to Renaissance ears? [Hardin Aasand] (3) --------------------------------------------------------------22---- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 11:33:25 EDT From: Steve Urkowitz Subject: Re: SHK 1.0034 Query: Shakespeare's Will (21) I remember a speculation, perhaps transmitted in one of Schoenbaum's tomes, that the "best bed" might be the one kept for company while the second-best would be the one shared connubially by Ma an' Pa Shaxper. I offer this only as an example of where speculation may drag an investigator. But in passing, may I recommend Carmen Luke, *PEDAGOGY, PRINTING, AND PROTESTANTISM: THE DISCOURSE ON CHILDHOOD* (SUNY Press, 1989) as a source of interesting material and references. I'm just beginning it, but the tone and attitude towards evidence is refreshing. I'd like to hear more about other work being done on Renaissance women. Also, Donald Foster of Vassar is finishing up a rich anthology of women's writing from c.1100 to c.1660. Tickle him for an early look at samples. [Steve Urkowitz CUNY Graduate Center] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 16:41:38 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0038 Oxford Electronic Shakespeare (34) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 38. Thursday, 30 Aug 1990. Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 11:03:06 EDT From: Steve Urkowitz Subject: Re: 1.0029 Electronic Editions (105) Ah, the fray! I've not gotten down to using electronic editions, but I have some warnings about using the Oxford paper editions as the basis for textual work of any kind. Or rather let me say that the Oxford texts must be checked against Quarto and Folio versions at each step in the process. A quick glance at the opening scene of 2 Henry VI will show how editorial manipulation of the 1594 and 1623 texts generates stage action and scenic effect quite opposite to either of the quite different early versions. Whether the Queen sits or stands while the courtiers stand or kneel seems a matter of some weight; whether the King later speaks boldly or reticently in his defense also matters. The 1594 text gives one consistent pattern, the 1623 another, the Oxford a squash of both. I'll be glad to trust the Oxford editors on how typesetters influenced these early scripts, but for theatrical interpretations and editorial choices dependent on them I'd have to check each line, each stage direction and each speech prefix. An electronic text based on such shaky dramatic taste seems an inauspicious foundation for linguistic analysis. Someone might try a scene-by-scene comparison of 2H6 in Q, F, and Oxford as an exercise for a class. Or try q1-q2-F Hamlet. But that's another world of difference. [Steve Urkowitz CUNY Graduate Center] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 16:42:45 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0039 Compositors and Circularity (56) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 39. Thursday, 30 Aug 1990. Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 12:02 CST From: ELIASON@GACVAX1.BITNET Subject: COMPOSITOR STINTS, CIRCULARITY, AND METHOD Ken Steele expresses some reservations over the apparent circularity in the logic underlying research into compositor stints. While I don't follow this research in Shakesperean bibliography, I do think the question of circularity is important and interesting because it arises in so many discussions of methodology in the humanities. (In my own specialty, Hoyt Duggan's attempts to identify metrical innovation introduced by scribes in Middle English alliterative poetry have met with charges of circularity. In the field of historical linguisitics, I think one has to be struck by the apparent circularity of the method which governs the reconstruction of proto-languages for which there is no surviving textual evidence.) The problem seems to run something like this: Suppose I can partition a text into subsets A1 and A2 on the basis of a given feature "A" (an orthographic habit, perhaps, or an unusual metrical pattern) which is pretty clearly attributable to a certain cause. I then notice that this partitioning into A1 and A2 also isolates another feature of the text, "B" (a syntactic structure, say), the cause of which cannot be immediately identified. How reasonable is it to conclude that the cause of feature "B" is the same as the cause of feature "A"? As long as the partitions coincide exactly, I think we feel confident that such a conclusion is justified. But in practice, things hardly ever work out so neatly. (Hence Ken's interest in seeing which partitionings result in the neatest _statistical_ probability.) One difficulty in evaluating these sorts of arguments seems to arise in the way counter-evidence is treated: Should I be satisfied if partitioning into A1 and A2 isolates 95 percent of feature "B"? If I can explain the exeptions as being themselves rule-governed can I then use the exception-rule in my partitioning? How many rounds of this sort of reasoning can I accept before plausibility is lost? My sense is that if the process results in a relatively compact and elegant set of "rules" for partitioning a text, my argument for partitioning will be accepted, though doubts will remain as to whether there isn't something "at root something . . . strangely illogical about it all." My question is whether it is possible to distinguish between methods which are truly _circular_ (and hence yield fatuous results since they beg the question) and those which are merely _recursive_ (i.e., those which, although they rely on their own results, produce a series of successively closer approximations to "the truth")? Eric Eliason Gustavus Adolphus College (ELIASON@GACVAX1.BITNET) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 17:36:01 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0040 Ideas for SHAKSPER's Future (62) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 40. Thursday, 30 Aug 1990. Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 17:32:12 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Ideas for SHAKSPER A number of suggestions have been made about possible new features of the Shakespeare Electronic Conference, and I would like to throw them out for comments and discussion from SHAKSPEReans as a whole. The electronic medium, the nature of the network, and the abilities of the Fileserver all conspire to make it particularly feasible to post cumulative data files for member contribution and retrieval. I have in mind the sort of file exemplified by the RIVERSID ERRORS SHAKSPER file, one which is of general interest and/or utility, and which SHAKSPEReans working together can make a more complete and up-to- date resource than is available elsewhere. Member suggestions so far have included a list of Shakespeare videotape and film resources, a core bibliography of criticism, and a list of current Shakespeare dissertations or works in progress. Some suggestions in the SHAKSPER GUIDE which have yet to be realized include the possibility of posting ASCII Shakespeare texts on the SHAKSPER Fileserver for retrieval by members. Members could use whatever text retrieval software they prefer to index and utilize these files. Obviously the files would have to be non-copyright texts, and for the textual scholars amongst us, the original quarto and folio texts would probably be preferable. Perhaps we could divide the work of scanning, proofing, editing, and tagging our own texts, or perhaps someone knows of texts which could be made available. Does anyone feel strongly whether this would or would not be worthwhile? It also seems to me that reviews of critical books or articles would be particularly appropriate on SHAKSPER. These would not necessarily be formal reviews, requiring much time or effort -- members could simply write brief paragraphs on something they had read of interest that week or month, and send it to the list. New trendy articles or classic tomes of criticism would be equally interesting to most of us, I suspect. We could rotate daily responsibility among a group of volunteers, or simply hope that the contributions would flow in regularly on their own. Any opinions or suggestions? Do any of you have any other suggestions for services or features which SHAKSPER could offer its members, or which its members could offer SHAKSPER? Any features of other electronic discussion groups which seem suggestive? Any needs which go unfilled by more traditional media? I look forward to seeing your responses. Yours, Ken Steele Editor, SHAKSPER University of Toronto or ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 17:49:13 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0041 Etexts on SHAKSPER (52) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 41. Friday, 31 Aug 1990. (1) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 17:51:28 EDT (9 lines) From: Tom Horton Subject: SHK 1.0040 Ideas for SHAKSPER's Future (2) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 22:56 CDT (7 lines) From: Michael Hancher Subject: SHAKSPER agenda: ASCII transcripts? (3) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 17:42:06 EDT (13 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: SHAKSPER as an Etext Resource (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 17:51:28 EDT From: Tom Horton Subject: SHK 1.0040 Ideas for SHAKSPER's Future (62) This is not really an idea (so don't get excited). But I do have a electronic version of the Folio text of Henry VIII which I am willing to make available if people are interested in this sort of thing. It has COCOA-style references. Tom (2) --------------------------------------------------------------14---- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 22:56 CDT From: Michael Hancher Subject: SHAKSPER agenda: ASCII transcripts? I like your suggestion of posting ASCII versions of the plays. First it would be useful to compile a handlist of any such versions already in the public domain, to avoid redundant keyboarding. (3) --------------------------------------------------------------17---- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 17:42:06 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: SHAKSPER as an Etext Resource My thanks to Tom Horton for his generous offer. I have edited etexts of the quarto and folio tragedies myself -- but I will have to negotiate their use on SHAKSPER. I know of at least five copyrighted electronic corpuses (corpii?) but of no public domain texts. Does anyone else have texts, or an opinion on this suggestion? Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 17:50:23 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0042 Non-Hierarchical Tagging of Etexts (73) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 42. Friday, 31 Aug 1990. (1) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 12:33:23 EDT (7 lines) From: "Michael S. Hart" Subject: Re: SHK 1.0033 WordCruncher Riverside Shakespeare (156) (2) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 17:20:48 EDT (48 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: The Value of Non-Hierarchical Coding (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 12:33:23 EDT From: "Michael S. Hart" Subject: Re: SHK 1.0033 WordCruncher Riverside Shakespeare (156) As for collecting all references to Juliet's lines, why not creat a macro to search for Juliet as speaker, then export her portions to a file. The file could then be searched for "love" as I recall the example was. mh (2) --------------------------------------------------------------52---- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 17:20:48 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: The Value of Non-Hierarchical Coding As Michael Hart suggests, there are makeshift solutions to any individual problem. If my desire was to detect all occurrences of "love" in the dialogue of Juliet, I could indeed create a database input text which consisted solely of her lines, index it (with TACT or WordCruncher), and then perform whatever operations upon it I wished. However, if I wished to compare Juliet's use of "love" with Romeo's use of it, or Juliet's use with all other characters' use, this solution would be extremely trying -- rather than a single distribution screen, one would be faced with multiple databases and very unhelpful results. Furthermore, this presumes that all I wish to do with the texts is explore this issue of Juliet's dialogue. The remarkable power of computer-assisted research comes from its spontaneity -- the researcher quite simply need not know what s/he is looking for until a pattern emerges from the evidence. It might not be the speeches of Juliet at all, but the spelling preferences of a single compositor; it might be that the word "love" does not appear at all in a particular gathering; it might be that love is always discussed in verse... (you get the idea). Using TACT, for instance, it is possible to evaluate the evidence in a single textbase according to any number of variables, because it is not limited to three rigidly hierarchical levels of codes. The user can type in a word, list of words, or presaved category of words, such as, for example, the language of Petrarchan love. One could then view the results of this search in a given scene, play, or genre in a one-line index screen, Keyword in Context screen, or (my favourite) a histogram. TACT's graph (called the Distribution Display) could depict the occurrences of the Petrarchan language according to Act, Scene, and Line. With a few keystrokes, the display would shift to a graph of occurrences by speaker, or by prose/verse, or by signature, compositor, gathering, and so on. Just like WordCruncher, TACT allows the researcher to *discover* new patterns, not simply to demonstrate anticipated ones -- but TACT (and apparently the eventual upgrade of WordCruncher) will allow the use of multiple, non-hierarchical tags, which greatly increases the utility and user-friendliness of the software, and advances by an order of magnitude the possibility for original discovery in research. Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 17:51:50 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0043 The Bed's Still Second-Best (41) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 43. Friday, 31 Aug 1990. (1) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 17:40:09 EDT (10 lines) From: Ray Wheeler Subject: Re: SHK 1.0036 The Second-Best Bed (2) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 17:39:23 EDT (13 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: English Common Law and Shakespeare's Widow (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 17:40:09 EDT From: Ray Wheeler Subject: Re: SHK 1.0036 The Second-Best Bed (84) Ken, I can't help but say thanks to you for the little treatise on the second-best bed. The story may be old hat to others, but it was new to me and most entertaining. It's probably a dumb question, but under Common Law and in the absence of a will, who or what would have determined which third the surviving spouse would receive? RW (2) --------------------------------------------------------------17---- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 17:39:23 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: English Common Law and Shakespeare's Widow Well, sorry, but I'm no expert on English Common Law. I don't think it mattered "which third" the widow would receive -- she received the use of the family home and one-third of the wealth, I assume, or income of the husband's estate. Does anyone else have any suggestions, or perhaps good sources for this matter? Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 18:00:22 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0044 Addressing Messages for SHAKSPER (30) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 44. Friday, 31 Aug 1990. Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 17:53:10 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: A Note on Addressing Messages to SHAKSPER A number of ambiguously public/private messages have arrived in my mail lately, so I would like to reiterate my request that any messages intended for redistribution on the SHAKSPER conference, and particularly any messages which might appear to be private mail but aren't, be directed to rather than . Ultimately, all the messages end up in the same mailbox, but their original destination is clearly recorded. If messages sent to my private address seem private, they may not be redistributed. Your assistance in this matter will also ease one of my headaches. Yours, Ken Steele Editor, SHAKSPER University of Toronto or ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 16:38:47 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0045 Bogdanov on TVO! (40) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 45. Monday, 3 Sep 1990. Date: Mon, 03 Sep 90 16:22:23 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: War of the Roses comes to TVO! SHAKSPEReans living in or near Ontario can catch more than 20 hours of Shakespeare in the next seven weeks on TVOntario. The public educational network is broadcasting the seven-play cycle of Michael Bogdanov's *The War of the Roses* Tuesday nights, beginning tomorrow, September 4th. This is an announcement to SHAKSPEReans within range to *set your VCR*! Other members of this conference should also be aware that British and American sales are in the works and no doubt a variety of Public Broadcasting Stations will soon offer these plays. Bogdanov's stage productions of *Richard II*, *1 Henry IV*, *2 Henry IV*, *Henry V*, *Henry VI: House of Lancaster*, *Henry VI: House of York*, and *Richard III* were hurriedly taped (one per day) on-stage at the Grand Theatre in Swansea. (Bogdanov's 1H4, 2H4, and H5 travelled to Toronto's Royal Alexandra Theatre in 1987 as a 9.5- hour "Harryathon.") The productions are chronologically eclectic; actor and co- director Michael Pennington says, "We've got it all: paratroopers, skinheads, punks, Edwardian gentlemen." Allusions also include Northern Ireland and the Falkland Islands, and apparently Queen Margaret has been deliberately made to resemble Margaret Thatcher. It sounds like wonderful fun, anyway -- I look forward to watching the plays all together on tape! Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 16:39:42 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0046 Addressing Messages to SHAKSPER (78) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 46. Monday, 3 Sep 1990. (1) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 20:05:38 EDT (34 lines) From: "Michael S. Hart" Subject: Re: SHK 1.0044 Addressing Messages for SHAKSPER (2) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 90 16:26:58 EDT (22 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Addressing Mail to SHAKSPER (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 20:05:38 EDT From: "Michael S. Hart" Subject: Re: SHK 1.0044 Addressing Messages for SHAKSPER On Fri, 31 Aug 90 18:00:22 EDT you said: [ . . . ] >A number of ambiguously public/private messages have arrived in my >mail lately, so I would like to reiterate my request that any messages >intended for redistribution on the SHAKSPER conference, and particularly >any messages which might appear to be private mail but aren't, be >directed to rather than . [ . . . ] I am afraid I did it again today. I responded to one of your notes from Shaksper, and then found it went to your personal address. This is going to be tough, since both your personal address and the server address appear in the server headers. I am as familiar with this problem as anyone, and yet still am as guilty as the others in that I am sure I have sent several notes to the wrong address. The REPLY function picks the address from the header, leaving no choice to the user, and not notifying them of the address until SEND. My original suggestion was that you log on to the server to email a set of notes which should have the server as the return address, is this still a real difficulty. I think this should be posted, so the others won't feel so guilty - and will realized even someone who is familiar with the system is a maker of the same mistakes. Perhaps another solution would be just to have us all write POSTING as the first line of anything we want posted. mh (2) --------------------------------------------------------------26---- Date: Mon, 03 Sep 90 16:26:58 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Addressing Mail to SHAKSPER [I should point out that I had no-one particular in mind when writing my previous note...] I will acknowledge that it may be difficult for members to alter the destination of "replies," if members will recognize that it is not possible for me to obtain another address at this node. Simplicity is probably preferable, so let's simply agree on the following: Anything sent to my address by a member of SHAKSPER will be presumed public unless specifically identified as private. Anything sent to SHAKSPER directly, or as a reply to a SHAKSPER mailing, will be presumed public. I will do my best, of course, to exercise editorial judgement when errors seem to have occurred. Members can circumvent the fallibility of this judgement by explicitly including the word PUBLIC or PRIVATE, at the beginning or end of a note. Hopefully this compromise will be satisfactory and effective -- I certainly hate to waste valuable discussion time on such administrivia. Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 18:55:09 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0047 Titus and "Remunerate" (90) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 47. Tuesday, 4 Sep 1990. Date: Tue, 04 Sep 90 18:50:43 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Titus and "Remunerate" In my thesis research, I've been a little disappointed to find *Titus Andronicus* rather boring -- textually, that is. There are a number of Q1/F1 variants, but most can be irrefutably ascribed to compositorial error: changes in pronouns, plurality, or verb tense are very common errors; passages of fabricated text have clearly been caused by quarto pages torn in specific ways; and all the truly interesting F1 variants seem to be compositorial anticipations or recollections of nearby words. Of course, there is the matter of scene 3.2, which does not exist at all in Q1. Also, F1 corrects one interesting error in Q1, and adds another still more interesting one of its own. I'm going to explore those later. Right now I want to focus on *Titus* 1.1.398, the editorial consensus about this line, and my objections. I'd be interested in any comments, suggestions, or parallels members can suggest. The line, "Yes, and will Nobly him remunerate," is the difficulty here, and appears only in the F1 passage. The only other real variant is F1's "sudden" for Q1's "dririe" -- and as I suggested, this can quite possibly be explained as anticipation (or eyeskip) to the "sodaine" two lines later. Here are the passages, which are both followed by very similar stage directions: {Marcus}. My Lord to step out of these dririe dumps, How comes it that the subtile Queene of {Gothes}, Is of a sodaine thus aduaunc'd in Rome. {Titus}. I know not {Marcus}, but I know it is. (Whether by deuise or no, the heauens can tell.) Is shee not then beholding to the man, That brought her for this high good turne so farre. (Titus Andronicus(Q1) 1.1:399-405) {Mar}. My Lord to step out of these sudden dumps, How comes it that the subtile Queene of Gothes, Is of a sodaine thus aduanc'd in Rome? {Ti}. I know not {Marcus}: but I know it is, (Whether by deuise or no) the heauens can tell, Is she not then beholding to the man, That brought her for this high good turne so farre? Yes, and will Nobly him remunerate. (Titus Andronicus(F1) 1.1:405-412) Stanley Wells (in the *Textual Companion*) and Eugene Waith (in his Oxford edition) agree that "Yes, and will nobly him remunerate" (1.1.398) is a "probably authentic complete line" (TC 209). It seems to me, though, that Titus' rhetorical question requires no response (least of all from the same speaker), and that the line is quite awkward. The authority of F1 rests solely in the added scene 3.2; I don't see that this line has much authority. Additional support for this argument (which, of course, requires additional support) comes from the fact that Shakespeare nowhere else uses "remunerate," the verb: Costard uses "remuneration" 11 times, and "remuneration" also appears once in *Troilus & Cressida*. Furthermore, the word "yes" does not occur otherwise in *Titus* Q or F -- in fact, it is most frequent in the later and collaborative plays (especially *Henry VIII* and *The Two Noble Kinsmen*). This only increases the likelihood that a later King's Men reviser was responsible for this interpolated line. Obviously, one cannot argue that Shakespeare never used a word simply because he used it only once -- after all, Shakespeare is generally considered more likely to use nonce-words than his compositors -- but can we really regard this line as authorial? Is anyone else troubled by its intrusion into the lines? Does it strike some as perfectly natural and poetically effective? Has anyone encountered similar phenomenon in other texts of Shakespeare or his contemporaries? Or in the field of authorship attribution? I'm looking forward to input on this or related examples. Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 16:17:52 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0048 Compositors and Circularity (34) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 48. Wednesday, 5 Sep 1990. Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 22:17:54 EDT From: steve urkowitz Subject: Re: SHK 1.0039 Compositors and Circularity Dear Eric Eliason, That wise seeking after reliability of hypotheses will always depend on personal taste and the agreement of the community. In Shakespearean textual studies, compositorial analysis seemed to offer very convincing means to sidestep personal taste. But different investigators keep on coming up with different compositors. More important, however, it seems that all the labor invested has not led to much insight about the playscripts being examined. We know a lot about the compositors. They didn't do all that much to the texts they set. And as a byproduct of the arcane investigative processes used to determine compositor stints, "regular" Shakespeareans have shied away from reading the earliest versions of the plays. Like the dragon in Beowulf, EDITOR sits fuming over the treasures in the early quartos. That's sad. The 1597 Romeo and Juliet, for instance, could well be offered to students as an interesting version of the play, whoever was responsible for it. We could learn something about theatrical process if only the editors didn't insist on generating an authoritative product. Drama doesn't work that way. We may have to live more happily with indeterminate and variant texts of Hamlet. Why not? Steve Urkowitz SURCC@CUNYVM ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 16:23:58 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0049 Titus and "Remunerate" (29) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 49. Wednesday, 5 Sep 1990. Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 22:55:08 EDT From: steve urkowitz Subject: Re: SHK 1.0047 Titus and "Remunerate" I guess we have to live with a degree of insecurity about how some lines sneak into some texts and not into others. I recently heard Peter Blayney spin out a whimsical explanation of how "Not an houre more, nor lesse:" enters LEAR at 2816. Blayney figures that his compositor is madly inventing ways to fill up whitespace for poorly castoff copy at the opening of his gathering "ss". Well, maybe. But, damnit, the line-chunk reads wonderfully however hypermetrical it may be. And even if the inky devil did the dirty deed, why not let it fly? Perhaps we're caught trying to squeeze the multiplicity we know about back into the tiny box of simplicity. If we agree that sometimes Shakespeare made changes, and sometimes other people changed his texts, and sometimes we can't tell who did what, then we have to find a way to live with that. We need to print two versions somehow. Yes? Why insist on THE AUTHORITATIVE or even THE AUTHOR'S TEXT? Gary Taylor dubs in his version, as does David Bevington. Steve Urkowitz SURCC@cunyvm ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 00:17:12 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0050 The Second-Best Bed Returns (43) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 50. Friday, 7 Sep 1990. Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 19:40 EST From: Subject: 2nd best bed Whatever the legalities involved, the willing of the second best bed to Anne will inevitably be read in the light of our attitude toward the couple and our perception of their relationship. Was that later addition to the will an act of kindness or of spite? Can we ever know? Perhaps we would do well to heed (an admittedly not always trustworthy) Anthony Burgess. He says With the name Hathaway chiming in our ears, we come to the mystery of Will's bequest to his widow. He left her 'the second-best bed' and nothing else. Whatever the significance of that solitary item, his provisions for her were less harsh than they seem. She had her widow's dower at common law, and her dowager's place in the great house that Susanna and her husband took over. She was content to live with Susanna and she got on well enough with her son-in-law. The second-best bed was installed in a particular chamber, and this chamber was to be inalienably hers. The best bed was in the master bedchamber, and the inheritrix took that by right. It was thus a means of clarifying accommodation. To show Will in an unpleasant light, we can prefer to believe that the second-best bed was the double bed she brought from Shottery, and all he did was to give her what was already hers. This implies a failure of love, an absence of love, a detestation long hidden from the world, a desire to humiliate from the grave. Let us try to keep Will likable. (*Shakespeare*, London: Jonathan Cape, 1970) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 09:19:28 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0051 Beds and Shakespeare (34) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 51. Friday, 7 Sep 1990. Date: Fri, 07 Sep 90 07:40:53 EDT From: Willard McCarty Subject: strange bedfellows Let me advocate devil's questions: apart from mere curiosity or a minor historical point, what possibly could be the significance of Shakespeare's marital relations? Could this matter somehow be or lead to a literary question? Is there, just out of sight, sophisticated critical theory to support bed-ridden investigations? And if so, is it appropriate to an author who so successfully kept his ordinary self out of his writings? To put it bluntly, have we nothing better to discuss? Forgive my less than complete knowledge of Shakespeare's texts, for I cannot recall that anywhere the poet gives us an excuse to ask about his beds. With Ovid one at least has a few words tying him to Actaeon, one of his characters in the Metamorphoses -- both of them, apparently, saw something they shouldn't. With Milton you've got a closeness of ordinary life and art, although the effect of this closeness is, I think, to make the point that we all live sub specie aeternitatis. Even when an author has dropped some clues to his or her ordinary life, how should they be used if we are not to become frustrated peeping toms on the best forgotten detritus of a life significant for its work? Oi, Will, have you turned enough in your grave? Willard McCarty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 09:32:55 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0052 Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are What? (37) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 52. Friday, 7 Sep 1990. Date: Fri, 07 Sep 90 09:20:45 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Stoppard's New Rosencrantz & Guildenstern I hope this announcement will be of interest to SHAKSPEReans elsewhere, but it should certainly be brought to the attention of Toronto members. Tom Stoppard has directed a completely rewritten and rearranged version of his 1968 award-winning play, *Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead*, and this cinematic production is premiering in Toronto next week. The film stars Richard Dreyfuss and Gary Oldman, and is distributed by Nova Entertainment. The film is showing as part of the annual international Festival of Festivals here in Toronto. I am aware of only *two* showtimes: Wednesday September 12, 1990 6:45pm Varsity 2 Theatre, 55 Bloor Street West (Manulife Centre) Friday September 14, 1990 1:00pm Cumberland 2 Theatre, 159 Cumberland Knowing Stoppard's tendency to revise, even in rehearsal, this film will probably present an entirely new text. SHAKSPEReans outside commuting distance to Toronto, don't despair: a local advertisement also promises the film is "Coming this fall from Nova Entertainment" -- which sounds somewhat promising. Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 21:24:23 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0053 The Second-Best Bed, Shakespeare's Life (135) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 53. Tuesday, 11 Sep 1990. (1) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 11:25:00 EDT (8 lines) From: PJP23@vms.cis.pitt.edu Subject: Re: SHK 1.0051 Beds and Shakespeare (2) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 21:04:08 EDT (88 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: The Bed and Biographical Criticism (3) Date: [Tue, 11 Sep 90 21:02:29 EDT (19 lines) From: Thomas Clayton Subject: The Second-Best Bed] (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 11:25:00 EDT From: PJP23@vms.cis.pitt.edu Subject: Re: SHK 1.0051 Beds and Shakespeare (34) Thanks to Professor McCarty for his levelheaded remarks about WS's marriage. Paul Pival (2) --------------------------------------------------------------92---- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 21:04:08 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: The Bed and Biographical Criticism I am really rather astonished that no-one has picked up the gauntlet tossed down by the self-proclaimed devil's advocate, Willard McCarty, when he asks: what possibly could be the significance of Shakespeare's marital relations? Could this matter somehow be or lead to a literary question? Is there, just out of sight, sophisticated critical theory to support bed-ridden investigations? And if so, is it appropriate to an author who so successfully kept his ordinary self out of his writings? To put it bluntly, have we nothing better to discuss? In fact, I'm still more astonished that the only response has been agreement (tacit or otherwise)! I could facetiously argue for the importance of beds in Shakespeare's writing, of course. I could present tables of data demonstrating where beds occur in Shakespeare's own stage directions, or that they are strongly associated with murder and sexual desire (though not sleep) -- but that's not the point here. There is, it seems to me, little question that the interpretation of the second-best bed provision in Shakespeare's will is crucial to any understanding of his youth, his "shotgun" wedding (please forgive the anachronism), and his subsequent family life. In short, the bed is indeed a valuable clue about Shakespeare's biography. I don't think Willard is questioning this --he is not asking whether the will sheds light on Shakespeare's life, but whether Shakespeare's life bears any connection whatsoever to his work. I was taught that this critical position was long outdated, that the "intentional fallacy" was a relic of the early New Criticism. I am the first to admit that it *is* valuable to regard a work of art as an autonomous artefact, but it is *also* valuable to see it in connection to the shaping intelligence which created it, in connection to the world it reflects, and in connection to its audience. A literary work is a multi-faceted gem: the more facets one examines, the more three- dimensional one's understanding of it grows. If, on the other hand, we insist on scrutinizing the work through a single facet, however polished that facet may be, we can be sure that ultimately we will see only a reflection of ourselves. In the latest *Shakespeare Bulletin* (which arrived today in the mail, and which by the way generously announces SHAKSPER on page 36), Louis Phillips quotes Mark Rutherford as saying, "I suppose that most persons would rather know what Shakespeare was doing on any day from dawn to sunset... than be instructed as to the history of the Congress of Vienna." True, but such an interest is not merely "bardolatry", either -- so acute a critic as James Calderwood confesses that "it is pleasant to think of Shakespeare as having at least temporarily occupied live skin before being permanently bound in calf" (*Shakespearean Metadrama*, p.6). Knowing that Shakespeare's first and only son, Hamnet, died just before he wrote *Hamlet*, or that his dissolute brother Edmund was in continual difficulty at the writing of *King Lear*, gives us tantalizing but significant insight into Shakespeare's naming of his characters, and perhaps his attitude toward them. Knowing that Shakespeare, and James I, had daughters whom they were attempting to "marry off" in the first decade of the 17th century explains the focus of many of the problem plays and romances. The examples are endless, and doubtless many of you can think of better ones than these... There *is* a Shakespeare lurking beneath his writings, and he is almost as visible as Chaucer or Milton are in their own. Not a post- romantic poet, of course, pouring forth his soul or expressing himself in rhyme -- the Renaissance concepts of psychology and poetry didn't leave much room for that. But Shakespeare was a skilled man of the theatre, an actor, a businessman, and a human being -- and who he was unquestionably affects the way his plays were written and the way they should (or can) be read. (Incidentally, for those who still doubt me, I'd like to recommend a recent and very enlightening study of Shakespeare's works in relation to his life, C.L. Barber & Richard P. Wheeler's, *The Whole Journey: Shakespeare's Power of Development* (University of California Press, 1986). The investigation skilfully weaves together psychoanalytical readings of the works and of the biography with sensitive literary interpretation.) Ken Steele University of Toronto (3) --------------------------------------------------------------22---- Date: [Tue, 11 Sep 90 21:02:29 EDT From: Thomas Clayton Subject: The Second-Best Bed] Back after a hiatus of a month, I find a discussion of the celebrated second best-bed problem. Ancient history reveals that it was discussed in some detail, not all of it facetious, in Chutney Grasmere-Popadom, "Shakespeare's Wills and Amorous Wonts: A Study in Sibliography Sicklied o'er with a Pail of Cast Thoughts," PUCRED 2.1 (1973): 11-19; and 2.2 (1973): 1-11. Among the suggestions made is that there is no hyphen in the will and placing one as usual ("second-best") is gratuitous and question- begging. PUCRED was an academic-burlesque journal that emanated from Berkeley (CA, not U-CA) c. 1972-74. Tom Clayton ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 21:26:09 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0054 Query: Image Clusters and Allusions (49) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 54. Tuesday, 11 Sep 1990. Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 20:31:28 edt From: Tom Horton Subject: Imagery in Shakespeare I know very little about recent trends in the study of imagery in Shakespeare (been reading a lot of software engineering lately, I'm afraid), but I'm curious about the idea of *image clusters*, which I think were first defined by Caroline Spurgeon back in 1935. If my memory serves, she found that Shakespeare had a habit of using a number of words in relative proximity to invoke a certain image. (Maybe a reader of SHAKSPER can throw out a good example with relative mental ease. I seem to remember the idea of dogs, candy, licking... used to conjure up a negative image of flatterers. But I'm not sure.) I encountered these more recently (say, 7 years ago) when looking at some work on the authorship of *Edward III*. This person attempted to show that the occurrence of particular image clusters in that play could be used as evidence of authorship. (I didn't find this argument particularly convincing.) Well, the reason I'm asking about these is that I'm currently investigating a program design that might be useful for finding allusions based on simple word occurrences. It occurred to me that my strategy would be useful for finding image clusters in large corpora. Of course, the proper question for a programmer to ask immediately after having such an idea for an application is: DOES ANYBODY CARE? Seriously, are scholars still interested in image clusters for any reason? Feel free to suggest articles or books, but summaries would be most helpful. Also, do folks out there have any applications that might benefit from software that finds "allusions" based on the relatively close occurrence of a set of words? Tom Horton Department of Computer Science Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, FL 33435 USA Phone: 407/367-2674 FAX: 407/367-2800 INTERNET: tom@cs.fau.edu BITNET: HortonT@fauvax ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Sep 90 19:54:58 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0055 Image Clusters and Allusions (50) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 55. Wednesday, 12 Sep 1990. (1) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 90 09:28:00 EDT (22 lines) From: HDCHICKERING@AMHERST Subject: Re Image Clusters, Allusions (2) Date: 12 September 1990, 10:39:36 EDT (11 lines) From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 90 09:28:00 EDT From: HDCHICKERING@AMHERST Subject: Re Image Clusters, Allusions As a literary reader, re-reader, of Sh. and Sh'n. criticism, I would think the associational network of the human brain has already done the work that such a program would accomplish. Even Spurgeon's pioneering study did more to confirm readers' intuitions than to unearth the un- expected. If the work were not identification of clusters or allusions but instead an experiment to ascertain the limits and characteristics of the semantic and syntactic fields within which such identifications can be made, by machine and by human readers, the program might be very useful in a study of reader psychology. Howell Chickering English Department Amherst College Amherst, MA 01002 HDCHICKERING@AMHERST (2) --------------------------------------------------------------25---- Date: 12 September 1990, 10:39:36 EDT From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Yes, Tom, there are critics out there still interested in image-clusters, as proof of authorship, as indicators of author's principal concerns (or obsessions or nightmares, as with toads and cisterns and other beasts and sex in *Hamlet* or *Othello*) or as indicators of cultural or historical contexts. Image-clusters might also help in establishing allusions or in prosody, as with the relationships between tenor and vehicle in similes. So please carry on. Roy Flannagan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Sep 90 19:55:59 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0056 Beds, Biographical Criticism (120) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 56. Wednesday, 12 Sep 1990. (1) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 22:45 EST (15 lines) From: "Blondeness: Not just a colour, but an attitude!" [Jeannette Schaffrath] Subject: the second best bed debate (2) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 90 01:00:13 EDT (31 lines) From: matsuba@Writer.YorkU.CA [Stephen Matsuba] Subject: No more beds (3) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 90 19:46:57 EDT (47 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: A Defense of Biography (II) (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 22:45 EST From: "Blondeness: Not just a colour, but an attitude!" Subject: the second best bed debate When I asked for theories about why Will left the second best bed to Anne, I did not envision the heated debates that this subject would arouse. In regard to what Professor McCarty said about my inquiry, I have to disagree. My area of study is History, not English. My interest in Shakespeare's will was for pure historical significance, not to suggest marital problems that he and Anne may, or may not have had. I have no wish to jade Shakespeare's image with tales of troubles or strife between Will and Anne. My purpose was simple historic significance of the entry. Jeannette Schaffrath (2) --------------------------------------------------------------56---- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 90 01:00:13 EDT From: matsuba@Writer.YorkU.CA Subject: No more beds I agree with Willard McCarty and also ask "does it matter?" The danger of placing significance on such biographical matters is that one really can never know whether or not a particular element would be significant to the work. My work dealing with Bernard Shaw (a nasty name in Shakespearian circles) showed me that while you could know a great deal about a writer's life, and can find some interesting links between the life and the work, one can also let these items cloud the work itself. *Heartbreak House* was written during the First World War, and one finds echoes (something for Tom Horton's query on allusion searching programs) of Shotover's sentiments in Shaw's letters. Indeed, the mysterious attacker in the sky can be traced to a letter that Shaw wrote to Beatrice Webb in which he describes a zeppelin attack near his home. But if one cannot simply write about the play as a work about war because there are enough elements within it to contradict such an interpretation. How can Mazzini Dunn claim that "Nothing will happen" if a war is on? If one needs to separate the work from the man in the case of Shaw, for whom a great deal of biographical material is available, how can we do the same for Shakespeare? And I have not even touched on the theoretical arguments that one could make. Stephen N. Matsuba York University (3) --------------------------------------------------------------51---- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 90 19:46:57 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: A Defense of Biography (II) The ultimate test of any critical approach to a work of literature is, I believe, the results and insights it achieves at its best. There was (and perhaps still is) a pronounced prejudice against author-oriented criticism -- intentional, biographical, or psychoanalytical -- which would unnecessarily eliminate an entire approach from legitimate consideration... and this seems to me to be a distinctly unscholarly narrowing of vision. I am the first to admit that much psychoanalytic criticism of Shakespeare (and other literary figures) has been utter nonsense. Then again, much computational, feminist, new historicist, and marxist criticism of Shakespeare (etc) also deserves to be relegated to the garbage can icon. The mere fact that some critics can use the approach successfully, or the prospect that some critic might do so, should be sufficient to quiet objections to the approach per se. If a critical argument is convincing, if it sheds light on the text and deepens our understanding, surely that alone is sufficient justification. Ultimately, I confess, I am not interested in Shakespeare *the man*, but Shakespeare *the poet/dramatist*. I don't really care what he ate for breakfast, or who did his laundry; I am fascinated, though, by the interconnections between his plays and poems, by the echoing of common themes and image clusters through his works, and by the creative mind which lies behind it all. The catalyst for my interest in authorial revision is a distinct sense that it is possible to catch a glimpse of Shakespeare, the poet, at work. The evidence which survives of his attitudes to certain words, images, or scenes must be drawn almost exclusively from his dramatic and poetic work, but is invaluable when attempting to understand minor authorial tinkering or verbal substitutions. It might be possible, in a sterile and oh-so-precise scholarly manner, to speak not of Shakespeare's habits or preferences, but of numerical probabilities and emphases in the texts -- but as students of the humanities, wouldn't we lose an essential component of our study by so doing? If we are ultimately seeking to understand humanity's vision of itself, does it not help to bring human beings into the equation? Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 19:49:11 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0057 Queries: Richard Levin, Classic Criticism (27) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 57. Friday, 14 Sep 1990. Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 10:29:35 EDT From: HOPE GREENBERG Subject: Queries: Richard Levin; Classic Criticism Until recently my interest in Shakepeare's plays has been more "hobby" than "scholarly," i.e. reading the plays themselves but not reading critical works on them. I decided it was time to pursue Shakespearean criticism and so picked up several books by Richard Levin. The first "A New Reading of Old Plays" put forth some interesting ideas, some that seem to debunk or criticize several current trends in the field. My questions are these: Is anyone familiar with this work, if so, would anyone care to comment on it (positively or negatively), and would anyone care to recommend to a Shakespearean neophyte some other critical readings? Hope Greenberg HAG@UVMADMIN University Computing University of Vermont Burlington, VT 05405 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 10:12:36 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0058 Beds, Biography, and Classic Criticism (70) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 58. Sunday, 16 Sep 1990. (1) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 21:27:43 EDT (26 lines) From: Steve Urkowitz Subject: Re: The Second-Best Bed, Shakespeare's Life (2) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 22:14:26 EDT (26 lines) From: Steve Urkowitz Subject: Re: Richard Levin, Classic Criticism (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 21:27:43 EDT From: Steve Urkowitz Subject: Re: The Second-Best Bed, Shakespeare's Life About the bed: We are what we eat, and we also are what we look at. Facts, such as the appearance of the 2nd-best bed in Will's will, are indeed appealing, but we may not be able to weave them into our particular narratives. If we spend a lot of time looking at the compositors of Q1 *King Lear* then we may want to make the compositors the most important figures in our stories about how that text took its peculiar shape. When I chose to look at the theatrical sensibility behind entrances and exits in that same text, some critics felt that I was looking at unimportant things, mere stagecraft, actors' concerns. But I spun out my narrative that touched on lots of stage events. By choosing what we eat or what we look at we shape our worlds. Perhaps because I grew up looking at odd places and eating odd things, I'm not so upset when I see other people's very different choices. You want to do testamentary beds? Fine! You think they're silly? That's your option. But too much of the limited supply of academic good will often seems to me to be squandered as one group of vegetarians castigates a different group of duck-roasters. The delightful satires generated by Richard Levin may serve as a helpful antidote to our sometimes too-fierce condemnations of other critics' sins of commission or omission. Steve Urkowitz, SURCC at CUNYVM (2) --------------------------------------------------------------28---- Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 22:14:26 EDT From: Steve Urkowitz Subject: Re: Richard Levin, Classic Criticism When I think of the critical texts that most shaped my own critical vocabulary, the items that come to mind are Bernard Beckerman, *Shakespeare at the Globe--1599-1609*, Hereward T. Price, *Construction in Shakespeare*, Michael Long, *The Unnatural Scene*, C.L. Barber and R. Wheeler, *The Whole Journey*, and then a group of essays recently on feminist issues. These include Lynda Boose, "The Family in Shakespeare Studies . . ." Renaissance Quarterly 40 (1987), and others in *The Woman's Part* ed. Carolyn Ruth Swift Lenz. Other exciting essays are by Stephen Booth, "On the Value of *Hamlet*" in N. Rabkin, *Reinterpretations of Elizabethan Drama* and Booth's *King Lear, Macbeth, Indefinition, and Tragedy.* These people seem particularly sensitive to drama as a fluid event manipulating emotional and intellectual power. My earliest training was in math and science, and these folks tapped the same sources of delight that I had found in differential equations and tensors: elegance, rigor, quickness. Do let me know what you think if you try them. Steve Urkowitz English, City College of New York, SURCC@CUNYVM ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 12:15:14 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0059 Basic Shakespearean Criticism (145) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 59. Sunday, 16 Sep 1990. Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 12:12:25 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Recommended Criticism After sifting through the hundreds of articles and books logged in my Shakespeare database, I've come up with a reasonably short list of basic introductory criticism which I consider interesting, important, and influential. (Naturally the list implicitly reflects my own interests and, perhaps, biases). If you're interested in a single Shakespearean play, perhaps the best source of information is the introduction to a scholarly edition -- the free-standing New Arden, New Cambridge, and Oxford editions are often superb sources of information and further references -- and I'd also recommend G.B. Evans' *Riverside Shakespeare* as a good single-volume introduction to Shakespeare, with plenty of illustrations, facsimiles, and also the texts and considerable textual and lexical annotation. The recent Oxford *Complete Works* offers a wonderful General Introduction, but virtually no introduction or annotation for the plays themselves. The Oxford *Textual Companion*, on the other hand, is the single most valuable and current textual resource available anywhere, at any price (although the price tag is hefty) -- but this is for students with particularly textual interests. Perhaps the *best* introduction to Shakespeare and his context I've found is *The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Studies*, edited by Stanley Wells (1986) and containing work by some prominent scholars and summarizing the current state of knowledge. (A *Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Drama* is apparently forthcoming.) The previous edition also contains some useful articles which are different, though not entirely outdated: it's *A New Companion to Shakespeare Studies*, edited by Kenneth Muir and Samuel Schoenbaum (1971). If you're after a more comprehensive bibliography on a specific subject, I'd recommend using the index of Larry S. Champion's *The Essential Shakespeare: An Annotated Bibliography of Major Modern Studies* (Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1986). The list of central classics of Shakespearean criticism could go on forever, of course (just take a look at Champion!). A short list of those which I found particularly inspiring would have to include these: Barber, C[esar] L[ombardi], and Richard P. Wheeler. *The Whole Journey: Shakespeare's Power of Development*. 1986. Reprint. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. Bentley, G[erald] E[ades]. *The Profession of Dramatist in Shakespeare's Time, 1590-1642*. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971. Rabkin, Norman. *Shakespeare and the Common Understand- ing*. 1967. Reprint. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. Schoenbaum, Samuel S. *William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life*. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Slater, Ann Pasternak. *Shakespeare the Director*. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble, 1982. A few intriguing works examining Shakespeare's use of language and poetry are the following: Bradbrook, M[uriel] C. *Shakespeare and Elizabethan Poetry: A Study of his Earlier Work in Relation to the Poetry of the Time*. 1951. Reprint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Clemen, Wolfgang. *The Development of Shakespeare's Imagery*. 1951. Reprint. London: Methuen, 1966. Halliday, F.E. *The Poetry of Shakespeare's Plays*. London: Methuen, 1954. Reprint. London: Gerald Duckworth, 1964. Hibbard, G.R. *The Making of Shakespeare's Dramatic Poetry*. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981. Good introductions to Shakespeare's playhouses are these: Gurr, Andrew. *Playgoing in Shakespeare's London*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Gurr, Andrew. *The Shakespearean Stage, 1574-1642*. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Styan, J.L. *Shakespeare's Stagecraft*. 1967. Reprint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. If you're interested in Shakespeare's plays as originally published, the most convenient and/or reliable facsimiles are these: Hinman, Charlton [J.K.]. *The Norton Facsimile: The First Folio of Shakespeare*. New York: Norton, 1968. Allen, Michael J.B., and Kenneth Muir. *Shakespeare's Plays in Quarto: A Facsimile Edition of Copies Primarily from the Henry E. Huntington Library*. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1981. If you're at all curious about textual issues (the current debate over Shakespearean revision, and the two versions of *King Lear*, for example), I'd heartily recommend the following: Honigmann, E[rnst] A[nselm] J[oachim]. *The Stability of Shakespeare's Text*. London: Edward Arnold, 1965. *The Division of the Kingdoms: Shakespeare's Two Versions of King Lear*. Edited by Gary Taylor, and Michael Warren, 45- 58. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. Urkowitz, Steven. *Shakespeare's Revision of King Lear*. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980. Another textual/bibliographical influence I've found it hard to escape is Randall McLeod (Random Cloud), for example his "UN- Editing Shak-speare." *Sub-Stance* 33/34 (1982): 26-55. Of course, the best way to keep up with current trends is to browse in *Shakespeare Quarterly* and *Shakespeare Studies*, and particularly valuable is the annual bibliography published by *SQ*. That's the list of those works which I use most frequently, or most heartily endorse to undergraduates, I think. The level of one's interest and preparation may dictate some modifications. I'd be interested in the basic works recommended by other members in order to supplement my own list (particularly if I've not heard of them). Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 14:36:36 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0060 Guillaume Chequespierre? (108) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 60. Monday, 17 Sep 1990. Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 14:30:38 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Guillaume Chequespierre While browsing through back-alley bookstores in Stratford (Ontario, remember), I came across a bizarre (and remaindered) anthology by John Hulme, of nineteenth-century French poetry which, when read properly aloud, sounds distinctly familiar. (Although this occasionally required stretching the French pronunciation *I* learned in school... ). This is the work, Hulme reports, of Guillaume Ch`equespierre of Stratte-Forte sur Avonne, a poet whose circle included minor poets like Jean Quittce, Henri Longueve'lo, Thomas Gris, A. Lefrette d'Enisonne, the visionary Guillaume Ble'que, and Robert Brunenc. (If you can find it, Hulme's anthology, published 1985 by Harper & Row, includes work by many of these). Although the French may seem meaningless without the benefit of Hulme's copious explanatory footnotes, the sampling I've cited may be entertaining nonetheless (I warn you, however, that aside from testing your memory this has no redeemable literary value whatsoever!): 1. Tout pille or, note, tout pille, date hisse de caisse tiens! O`u est d'air tisse n'eau bleue Inde mainte? Tous ouverts De silence, Anne d'arrose offerte rageuse forte jaune Or; tout teck ^ame sag`ene, c'est ta si oeuf trou bel ce. Anne b^ailleur pose en gaine d'aime. 2. Freine ce romance qu'un trime haine, laine demi yeux hier ce. Ail comme tout be'ret six ares note tout pr`es cime. De Yves; elle dattes m`ene d'o`u livres safre; te s`eme De gourdes, hisse oeuf tines tertre vite, d'air Beaune ce. 3. Noue -- y ce devine! Terre oeuf ourdit, ce corne teinte M'aide clore rieuse; sous mer b^aille, dise sonne oeuf choc. ... Ah os! Ah os! Maille qui ne d'homme fourra os. 5. Si ce r^ot yole trop neuf quine ce, dix ceps terre d'aieul. Dessert touffe ma geste et de'cide oeuf masse. Des auteur est daine de mies par `a d'ail ce Dise fort tresse bile te; b^aille ne'e ch`ere foreur salve `A gaine; ce tine vais Jean ^anes de hante oeuf o`u or. 23. O mise tresses mailles ne! O`u air are yu rot mine Ose de' Inde hier yeux trou louve; ce Comines Datte canne scie ne que beau taillant l'eau Tripes n'eau feutre pr^ete' ce oui tine Dieu n'est Seine d^ine Louvre ce mie tine. Effare'e o`u ail ce mince, sans dot nos. 28. Chat l'ail comme paires six touez sous mer ce the'. Saoul h^ate mort; l'oeuf lianes mort th`eme para^itre, Rouf oins doux ch`eque; ce dart lion boudes oeuf mais Anne sous mer; ce liasse atoll touche or tous de's. 30. Orle de veule sasse tais-je Ane hors le domaine inoui m`ene; mire lit pla^it heuse The' h^ave, d'air excite, sain d'air entra^ine; cesse Anne! O`u on Menin hisse taille me pla^it ce m`ene y p^ate ce. 31. Et toi, ce Louvre un dise lasse. Vite he' Inde eau, Inde he' -- non, ni nos! Date or de gril ne corne fil ce dite pas ce. En d'aspirine taille me, de eau ne l'y prise terrine taille me. O`u haine boeuf ce doux zinc est digne, digne d^ine. Souhaite Louvre ce l'oeuf d'aspirine. 34. Tue moraux, Anne, tue moraux, Anne, tue moraux! Cr^epes synth`eses petit p`ese, frondez tous de's. Tuteur lasse si la belle offre cor dettes, th`eme Anne d'or lourd; yeuse te de' s`eve, l'ail t'aide foule ce. Ce ouais! Tout d'usite' dettes; haute, haute, prive Cannes d'elles. 39. De quoi lite'e oeuf merci; hisse note se tra^ine de Hie trop p`ere, tasse de g^ene, telle reine forme e'vent. Ah bon! Ce plaise be'nite, et tisse toise; blesse te E'tat blesse th`eme date, gui vesce intime, dattes teck ce. 40. O`u on ce Maure un tout de Brie je dire freine ce, o`u on ce Maure Orgue l'ose d'o`u or loupe, oui ce urine cliche dettes Hie ne pisse terre; ce noeud tine sobre comme ce main, `A ce modiste cette ^ile naissante hue milite'e. ---------------------------------------------------------------- (ANSWERS) When reading these passages, think of the following works of Shakespeare (but try them without the answers first!): 1) Hamlet; 2) Julius Caesar; 3) Richard III; 5) Richard II; 23) Twelfth Night; 28) Sonnet 18; 30) As You Like It; 31) As You Like It; 34) Macbeth; 39) The Merchant of Venice; 40) Henry V. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 10:17:41 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0061 Collected Works vs Paperback Editions (28) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 61. Saturday, 22 Sep 1990. Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 10:06 EDT From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: Anthology Versus Paperbacks I teach Shakespeare to undergraduate English majors. In past years, I have required my students to purchase a one-volume anthology: either Bevington's *Complete Works* or Evans' *Riverside*. In the spring, I'm planning to use paperback editions of individual plays for the first time. I would appreciate any comments on the merits of an anthology versus paperback editions. I am very aware of the theoretical and political implications of using an anthology, but I would still like to hear what others think on the matter. Hardy M. Cook Bowie State University HMCOOK@BOE.TOWSON.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 21:25:38 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0062 Anthologies (22) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 62. Saturday, 22 Sep 1990. Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 17:38 EST From: Subject: Anthologies In his query about using paperback editions of Shakespeare, Hardy M. Cook mentions the "theoretical and political implications" of using an anthology. I'd be interested to learn more about exactly what those implications might be. I assume that he means something besides the tacit assumptions and biases of the editor(s), since these would be evident in separate paperback editions as well. Does the anthology format itself raise certain problems for readers and teachers? Steve Wright WRIGHTS@CUAVAX ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 07:59:11 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0063 Collected Works, Oxford Shakespeare (96) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 63. Monday, 24 Sep 1990. (1) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 20:28 EST (40 lines) From: Subject: collected vs paperbacks (2) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 07:39:46 EDT (38 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: The Oxford Complete Works (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 20:28 EST From: Subject: collected vs paperbacks The choice of the collected Shakespeare or individual paperbacks is one that has long been a problem. I have in the past used selected paperbacks either the Pelican or Arden but lately have used only the Riverside. It's cumbersome and at times I am tempted to cut it up into smaller parts--tragedies, comedies, etc., but find that not really helpful. The advantage of a collected works, of course, is the fact that you have available for you in class a ready means to illustrate not just by reference but by actually turning to a passage or passages for comparison. For example, it is more effective, I think, to illustrate Shakespeare's self-referential in jokes by seeing the passages on the page and not just referring to them. Thus the bishop of Ely's strawberries in RIII are given yet another dimension when another Ely selects strawberries as a vehicle for his metaphor in Henry V. The sonnets and poems are handy also in relation to the plays. I typically do 9 or 10 plays in an undergraduate course for majors. I believe that an English major should have a complete Shakespeare and even though we will cover only approximately one third of the plays, the volume will become a permanent part of their libraries. (I know, I know. I'm being naive. I, too, have seen them lined up at the end of the semester to sell their books back to a jobber.) Whatever the stance of the editor(s), the value of a consistent, clearly spelled out approach to the textual problems is worth the disadvantages of a collected works. [John Dorenkamp College of the Holy Cross Worcester, Massachusetts] (2) --------------------------------------------------------------42---- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 07:39:46 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: The Oxford Complete Works I am curious as to the general acceptance of the New Oxford Shakespeare in college classrooms. It seems to me that the individual volumes should be as useful as the New Arden or Cambridge Shakespeares -- up-to-date, fully annotated, carefully edited -- but the Complete Works have, of course, no annotation (unless one counts the glossary) and no textual information (unless one also lugs around the hefty and pricey Textual Companion, which is the definitive source). It seems clear that Oxford's primary target with the Collected Works (Old-Spelling and Modern-Spelling) and the Textual Companion was the Shakespeare scholar, not the student. I'm not sure Oxford realized this at the time -- but apparently negotiations are now being made with Norton in the United States to publish an Oxford Shakespeare with annotation at the foot of each page, presumably in a smaller format to be more convenient as a student edition. (Oxford's own smaller-format Collected Works has been available for some time, but does not differ textually from the larger, heavier volume -- the largest and most awkward text of Shakespeare I've ever carried around campus!) Does anyone out there use the Oxford Collected Works, in modern or old- spelling? The individual Oxford editions, as they become available? The electronic version? Does anyone suggest these texts to their students, or are these considered purely research materials, like the Textual Companion? Is the preferred collected works the Alexander text or the Riverside? And was Hardy Cook thinking of political implications beyond the expense imposed on students by an instructor's choice of Collected Works? The monumentality of a collected volume in terms of the reformulation of the canon? The editorial implications of one approach or the other? Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 08:00:30 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0064 Query: Course Materials (30) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 64. Monday, 24 Sep 1990. Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 07:27:00 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Course Outlines, Reading Lists A SHAKSPERean has privately suggested that this conference might be an ideal medium for a "teaching exchange" on Shakespeare. I would like to invite members to submit course outlines, introductory handouts, or reading lists, whether for high school, undergraduate, or graduate level courses, to the group for distribution or archival on the Fileserver. Any other suggestions, as well as any other bibliographies, are also welcome. Members should be able to "upload" ASCII files to their mainframe accounts via a file transfer protocol such as "Kermit" -- I am not asking anyone to re-type a complete file. For more information, please contact your computing centre staff or (as a last resort) myself. I also look forward to continued discussion of the anthology issue -- (I'm just suggesting a parallel discussion, not a replacement.) Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 20:40:09 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0065 Conference Announcements, Calls for Papers (76) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 65. Monday, 24 Sep 1990. Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 20:37:41 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Conference Announcements, Calls for Papers The following Conference announcements and calls for papers appear in the September 1990 Newsletter of the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies at the University of Toronto: CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENTS: English Renaissance Prose. Fourth annual conference. Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA. October 12-13, 1990. Sixteenth Century Studies Conference. St. Louis, Missouri, October 25-27, 1990. Information: Elisabeth Cleason, Dept. of History, University of San Francisco, California, 94117, USA. Attending to Women in Early Modern England. Center for Renaissance and Baroque Studies, University of Maryland, Nov. 8- 10, 1990. Information: Joan Hartman, Dept. of English, College of Staten Island/CUNY, 130 Stuyvesant Place, Staten Island, New York, 10301, USA. CALLS FOR PAPERS: 30 Sept., 1990. "Sex and Sexuality in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance." To be held at the University of Toronto, 22-23 November 1991. Scholars are invited to propose papers analyzing any aspect of sex and sexuality. Papers from all disciplines and perspectives are invited and interdisciplinary methodologies are encouraged. Two copies of a one page abstract and a brief curriculum vitae should be sent by Sept. 30, 1990 to Jacqueline Murray, Dept. of History, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario N9B 3P4. Tel: (519) 253-4232 ext. 2323. January 15, 1991. 14th International Conference on Elizabethan Theatre. To be held at the University of Waterloo, July 22-26, 1991. Short papers on "Women and the Elizabethan Theatre" are invited to supplement a programme of invited addresses. Papers concerned with Elizabethan and Jacobean drama apart from Shakespeare are particularly welcome. Submissions, not exceeding ten pages, should be sent by Jan. 15 to Lynne Magnusson or Ted McGee, Dept. of English, University of Waterloo, Waterloo Ontario, N2L 3G1. Bitnet: . 20 May, 1991. "Place and Displacement in the Renaissance." To be held at the Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, State University of New York at Binghamton, October 18-19, 1991. Abstracts or completed papers (the latter given preference) to be submitted by May 20 to Prof. Alvin Vos, CEMERS, State University of New York, Binghamton, New York, 13902. International Society for the History of Rhetoric. Meeting to be held in Baltimore/Washington, Sept. 25-29, 1991. For information and abstract form write Prof. N. Struever, Humanities Center, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA. __________________________________________________________________ [The CRRS Newsletter is distributed free of charge and its current circulation is 1250. To enter notices or to be placed on the mailing list, contact the editor: David Galbraith, Curator, CRRS, Victoria University, Toronto, Canada M5S 1K7. Bitnet: or . Fax: (416) 585-4584.] ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 08:20:53 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0066 Single-Volume Shakespeares (77) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 66. Tuesday, 2 Oct 1990. Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 19:57 EDT From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: Thoughts About One-Volume Editions of the Plays I would like to thank John Dorenkamp for responding to my inquiry about the merits of individual paperback copies of Shakespeare's plays versus a one-volume collected edition. I too believe English majors ought to own all the plays of Shakespeare; I myself own at least a dozen *complete* works, including the Riverside (one-volume and electronic editions), the Oxford, the BBC TV Shakespeare, the Alexander, the Bevington (Scott Foresman and Bantam editions), and several from the 19th century. I would, however, prefer that my students *want* to have copies of all the plays for themselves rather than owning them because I compelled them to purchase a one-volume collection. Steve Wright asks what I meant by "the theoretical and political implications" of using a one-volume edition. Ken Steele wonders if I meant "expense," "the monumentality of a collected volume in terms of the reformulation of the canon," and the "editorial implications of one approach or the other." My answer to Ken is "yes, these and more." In part, I was fishing to see what others thought. I begin a project this summer on the reception of Shakespeare's sonnets. I first turned to their transmission, finding that for the 17th century the site of contestation was the text itself. As I moved to the 19th century, I became more and more interested in not simply the reception of the sonnets but in their appropriation -- the focus I am now investigating. This work on appropriation (and my reading of current theory and criticism) has led me to question many of my earlier positions. For example, if I now want to approach the plays as dynamic scripts, does not requiring a one-volume edition tend to enshrine them as something else. I am very conscious of the politics of bardolatry -- how the deification of Shakespeare has so often been for motives other than the appreciation of the plays. In 1864, Clark and Wright published *The Globe Edition: The Works of William Shakespeare.* This one-volume, 5" x 7" edition was meant to be taken to the far reaches of the empire. It contained no footnotes but was the first edition to number "the lines of each scene for convenience of reference." The Globe of the title was not that "wooden O" in which the plays were performed -- it was "this solid globe" itself. On the titlepage, one finds a globe surrounded by hands clasping, upon whose arms is written "One touch of nature makes the whole world kin." If this were not enough, note the concluding paragraph of Clark and Wright's Preface: We trust that the title which has been chosen for the present edition will neither be thought presumptuous nor be found inappropriate. It seems indeed safe to predict that any volume which presents in a convenient form, with clear type and at a moderate cost, the complete works of the foremost man in all literature, the greatest master of the language most widely spoken among men, will make its way to the remotest corners of the habitable globe. My concern then involves what are we saying by word and deed to our students when we require them to purchase one of the (if not *the*) most expensive textbook/s in the bookstore to study ten to twelve plays in a semester when all our students want is a book that is easy to bring to class and that they can read in bed. Hardy M. Cook Bowie State University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 15:55:14 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0067 Expensive Collections Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 67. Tuesday, 2 Oct 1990. (1) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 14:21:00 EDT (18 lines) From: matsuba@writer.uucp Subject: Re: SHK 1.0066 Single-Volume Shakespeares (2) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 90 15:36:18 EDT (72 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: "Th'expense and waste of his revenues..." (KL 2.1.100) or, "O reason not the need!" (KL 2.4.264) (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 14:21:00 EDT From: matsuba@writer.uucp Subject: Re: SHK 1.0066 Single-Volume Shakespeares I am teaching a tutorial section of the third year Shakespeare as my teaching assistantship in the Ph.D programme, and the required text is the Riverside Shakespeare. Its main advantage is that we can cross-reference material, referring back to plays we have already done in class, and glancing at material we will be looking at or perhaps are skipping over. Its BIG disadvantage is its size. There are days when carting what seems like a couple of tons of book from one building to another is annoying. I have on occasion cheated and brought my Arden instead. But I must admit that my students are, on the whole, quite stoic about it. And having all the plays at hand outweighs (bad pun) any other problem. Stephen Matsuba York University (2) --------------------------------------------------------------71---- Date: Tue, 02 Oct 90 15:36:18 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: "Th'expense and waste of his revenues..." (KL 2.1.100) or, "O reason not the need!" (KL 2.4.264) The current selling price of the *Riverside Shakespeare* at the University of Toronto Bookshop is $59.95 Can. (probably something less than $45 in the United States). Such a price does indeed put a burden on an undergraduate's budget, but the reading lists for some other English literature courses are much more expensive! In particular, I remember buying two hardcover anthologies for an undergraduate course in 17th Century English: the Hughes Milton ($32.95) and the Witherspoon & Warnke anthology ($37.75) brought the total to over $70, and this was about eight or nine years ago when a Shakespeare collected works would have been far less. The most expensive English courses I can recall have been novel courses, in which paperbacks for well over $10 each added up to hundreds of dollars per course (not to mention hours spent searching for the texts!). Obviously electronic texts and portable computers may provide an eventual escape from this expense -- but not yet. Shakespeare is certainly not the most expensive text in the store -- computer science courses, for example, require the purchase of software and manuals well over $100. And some students, I would wager, spend more on alcohol in a month than on textbooks. By the end of their degree, English majors will have purchased the collected works of Chaucer, Milton and Shakespeare at least -- and one could easily argue that any liberally-educated person should have bought and/or read them. Putting all three on a first-year introductory course booklist is obviously excessive, but each is perfectly reasonable for dedicated second-year courses. To make the required texts for a Shakespeare course a series of seven or eight paperbacks, soon to be discarded or destroyed (and whose prices might well ultimately add up to $50 or $70 anyway), would do students a great disservice -- exercising neither the muscles in their arms or in their heads. Accessibility to higher education is an important issue, but the cost of books and even tuition is a *minor* factor -- here in Toronto, monthly rents exceed annual tuition fees for most students. (Average rent is in the neighbourhood of $800, while tuition can be as low as $700 per annum.) The real cost of an education, the reason which discourages so many potential students, is not the cost of tuition and books, but the postponement of four years' income. In comparison, a $50 book is negligible. The real value of a collected works is that it gives the student access to general introductory material, background, and most importantly, the complete corpus of Shakespeare's work. One cannot truly understand *A Midsummer Night's Dream* without reading *Romeo and Juliet* first; *1 Henry IV* has meaning primarily in the context of the entire Henriad; the Sonnets and poetry shed important light on every word Shakespeare wrote. Naturally, the less ambitious and less motivated students won't read more than they are forced to -- in fact, most students will come to class without having read so much! But the better students, the curious students, will have the works of Shakespeare placed within their grasp, and may well make use of the entire volume, either during the course or later. (Exceptional students would probably seek out the other works regardless of the required texts.) And for students suffering real financial restraints, used bookstores and libraries can often lessen the hardship. Obviously no-one would put the Oxford English Dictionary, the Norton Facsimile of the First Folio, or the Oxford Textual Companion on undergraduate text lists -- each is well over $100 in its cheapest form. But *Shakespeare* they really should have in convenient form, at home, as a lifelong alternative to television. Whether they major in English or Engineering. Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 22:54:37 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0068 Collected Works of Shakespeare (184) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 68. Tuesday, 2 Oct 1990. (1) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 90 22:32:07 EDT (150 lines) From: [Tom Clayton ] Subject: [Single-Volume Shakespeares] (2) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 16:07:44 EDT (16 lines) From: Jonah Sinowitz Subject: Re: SHK 1.0067 Expensive Collections (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 02 Oct 90 22:32:07 EDT From: [Tom Clayton ] Subject: [Single-Volume Shakespeares] Hardy Cook's communication (SHK 1.0066 Single-Volume Shakespeares (77)) prompts me to wonder publically when it is appropriate to respond privately to an individual (as directly to him), when to air one's views over the network (as here, for a third time but I hope not often or soon if ever again), and when to hold one's peace, an option with the merits that it costs no effort, clutters no airwaves, and ruffles no feathers (of those perched on the party line, especially). 1 In the case of the ideological implications of editions, there are basically two questions: (1) editions as editions for reading and use, and (2) editions as the embodiment of overt, covert, or unconscious ideological projects--a question that interests me "academically"; that is, not very often, not very much, and not theoretically, since it usually involves merely the propagation of foregone ideological conclusions. And the usual answer to such a backward show of indifference as mine to Matters of such Contemporary Magnitude and Moment--that "ALL is ideology and those who deny that are the most ideological(ly self- deceived) of all"--seems to me tantamount to "there is nothing save opinion, and opinion be damned." I leave such discourse to those who profess it and/or enjoy it otherwise. I do not neces- sarily invite others to come and do likewise, but I certainly welcome the company of those who do. The question which edition to use can be sensibly and prag- matically entertained, and answered in various sensible and prag- matic ways, favoring now individual editions, now collected works, now both, none of these perfect, any more than the teacher of any is likely to be perfect, except by relatively simple criteria like political (or editorial) "correctness." Some edi- tions, teachers, teachings, and miscellaneous projects may be more politically "correct" than others, but that, again, is a question for those for whom the question of political correctness is prior to all others. In such cases, I am often reminded of Dr. Johnson's observation about "the cant of those who judge by prin- ciples rather than perceptions." A dangerous person, Dr. Johnson, because he is ever thought-provoking and readily understood by any literate undergraduate. Editionswise (or foolish), I have sometimes used collected works, which CAN cost little if any more than a certain number of individual-play paperbacks, depending upon the edition; but I more often use individual editions, mainly because they are likely to be carried about more freely, read more regularly and readily, marked up more because the paper is thicker and there is relatively more margin (and I think marking up a good thing, not a bad), and generally used in a way and to an extent that col- lected editions very seldom are, in our mobile culture. I use different individual editions for different kinds of course (in one course, this term, New Arden, New Cambridge, and Oxford- individual by turns, for purposes of--incidental--comparison). It is good for most students to have a collected works, and I can sympathize with my own Alexandrian teachers who thought that every student should have a collected Shakespeare on the shelf-- because it just might come down, now and again, and there are not many books better taken down, even if "Shakespeare" (as he is fashionably depreciated by quotation marks, at present) were merely the creature of imperialist cultural mythography that any literate reader can see he is not. One of the more sensible as well as short comparative evalua- tions of Shakespeare texts that still has value, partly because it extrapolates, is "the Shakespeare section" by Karl Haffenref- fer in F. W. Bateson and Harrison T. Meserole's *Guide to English and American Literature,* 3rd ed. (London and New York: Longman, 1976): 78-85. These few pages will merely exercise boa deconstructors and others for whom all assertion is grist for the discourse mill, but for the few otherwise-minded remaining (and fewer still forthcoming), they have their value. Whatever the edition, where it is wrong, and one knows it is, one corrects. (To the gratification of every ego, this happens all the time: we all know SOMETHING that genuinely matters which no one else knows, one of the proper satisfactions of responsible teaching, modestly deployed.) Where one disagrees with one aspect or another of any part of an edition that is not a case of right or wrong in matters of fact or historical probability, one explains the grounds of disagreement--not necessarily at excruciating length. Disagreement is part of scholarship and part of life (but of course not of ideology, where happily there is only one correct answer, even if it varies from quarter to quarter, and year to year). To my way of thinking, it is more interesting in relation to particular cases than to the theoreti- cal or ideological sub- or superstructures that interpretations proceed from or imply as operational whether consciously entertained or not. In other words, an interest in literary or dramatic works qua works, writings, scripts tends to entail the practice of literary and dramatic criticism. The entailments of ideology and theory come from elsewhere and have their own destinations. 2 A few quotations from Mr. Cook's e-letter will show some assured "sites of contestation," if he and I, or others so dif- ferently minded, were to enter the same field. 1. "I would . . . prefer that my students *want* to have copies of all the plays for themselves RATHER THAN owning them because I compelled them to purchase a one-volume collection." Where is it that one can one COMPEL students to purchase ANY- THING? Not anywhere I have taught or studied. More to the point, by what logic is a text that is REQUIRED, by the same token NOT WANTED? In my experience, students are often very pleased to own books they would never have thought of acquiring had those books not been "required." (They can be read on Reserve in the library, after all.) 2. "If I now want to approach the plays as dynamic scripts, does not requiring a one-volume edition tend to enshrine them as something else?" ANSWER: NO. In any case, the "tendency" of any edition can be "exposed"--or noted--by the teacher. 3. "I am very conscious of the politics of bardolatry"--which I would take to mean: "I have been told and come to agree that there is such a thing as 'the politics of bardolatry,' and there- fore 'I am very conscious of 'it.'" This is the position of the true (dis)believer; skeptics and empirics tend to think other- wise, and that probably includes the majority of dramatists. 4. The Globe "edition was meant to be taken to the far reaches of the empire." This is a sweeping interpretative asser- tion, not a statement of "fact" by any stretch of the reasonable imagination, and not a fact even with the reading of the iconography of the title page. "The Globe of the title was not that 'wooden O' in which the plays were performed -- it was 'this solid globe' itself [as 'great' in *the Tempest*?] . On the title page, one finds a globe surrounded by hands clasping, upon whose arms is written 'One touch of nature makes the whole world kin.'" This is an emblem of international affinity before it is one of conquest, surely, or must the "real" meaning be covert because the one desired is not overt? The one-world ideal has been vari- ously desiderated and expressed over the centuries, and is still sought by the best as well as the worst, and not every such "design" is a case of "Heute England, morgen die Welt." I would even venture to suggest that Shakespeare's works have brought more together by shared enthusiasm (leading to mutual understanding) than by imperialism and colonization. In my EXPE- RIENCE, that is a fact. Best wishes, Tom (2) --------------------------------------------------------------25---- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 16:07:44 EDT From: Jonah Sinowitz Subject: Re: SHK 1.0067 Expensive Collections Question: I am a student at Rutgers University. I have been using the Riverside for quite a while and the binding is starting to break. I have decided that I must take it to a book binder or... buy a new book. Will getting the book bound solve my problems ??? I am attached to it - but I know another one ($45 at Rutgers) is well worth the investment. ???, Jonah sinowitz@pilot.njin.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 14:26:25 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0069 New Renaissance List (104) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 69. Wednesday, 3 Oct 1990. Date: Mon, 01 Oct 90 18:01:42 EDT From: Willard McCarty Subject: new electronic seminar Ficino: a new electronic seminar and bulletin-board for Renaissance and Reformation studies The Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies (CRRS), at Victoria University in the University of Toronto, takes great pleasure in announcing the creation of Ficino, an international electronic seminar and bulletin-board devoted to all aspects of the Renaissance and Reformation. The aim of Ficino is to further lively discussion and rapid exchange of information amongst scholars with an interest in its subject areas. Although focussed on these areas, Ficino is meant to be radically inclusive. Students of both Northern and Southern European cultures are equally welcome, as are those in distant or adjacent periods who wish to contribute their knowledge and skills to the subject matter of the seminar. All approaches and disciplines are equally relevant, but Ficino particularly encourages the interdisciplinary breadth of learning appropriate to Renaissance humanism. As with SHAKSPER, membership is open to anyone who submits a biographical statement of background and interests. A form for this purpose is appended below. My thanks to Steve DeRose for the original from which it was taken. Ficino has been named after Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499), a Florentine Platonist, man of letters and prolific letter-writer, in order to suggest not only the historical period on which it focuses but also its intended manner. As you may know, Ficino himself was preoccupied by intellectual communication, the ideal form of which he found in the Platonic convivium. Thus he wrote to Bernardo Bembo that, `The convivium ... rebuilds limbs, revives humours, restores spirit, delights senses, fosters and awakens reason. The convivium is rest from labours, release from cares and nourishment of genius; it is the demonstration of love and splendour, the food of good will, the seasoning of friendship, the leavening of grace and the solace of life.' Our seminar is designed to provide an electronic analogue of Ficino's ideal institution; experience suggests that the new medium holds great promise for our success. Like SHAKSPER as well, Ficino also uses ListServ to provide a kind of `bulletin-board' or fileserver for various materials of a less dynamic nature. Plans are in progress to make available on the server the International Directory of Renaissance and Reformation Associations and Institutes (Toronto: CRRS, 1990); the Occasional Publications of the CRRS that deal with its holdings; other bibliographies; calls for papers, announcements for conferences and projects, and job postings; electronic texts; information about relevant software; and so forth. The CRRS also warmly encourages contributions to the archive from its members. A biography recycled from Humanist is acceptable, although it may have to be revised to place greater emphasis on interests in the Renaissance or Reformation. It should follow the format below as closely as possible. - - - - - -- - - - Please fill in and mail to the editor - - - - - (Any long item can be continued on following lines) *NAME: *INSTITUTION: *DEPARTMENT: *TITLE: *EMAIL: *PHONE: *ADDRESS: *POSTAL CODE: *COUNTRY: *PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS: *BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH (ca. 100-500 words) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thank you. Willard McCarty, editor Senior Fellow Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies Victoria University in the University of Toronto McCarty@VM.EPAS.UToronto.CA William Bowen, associate editor Chair, Publications Committee Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies Victoria University in the University of Toronto Bowen@VM.EPAS.UToronto.CA ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 14:38:11 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0070 Course Texts / Collected Works (28) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 70. Wednesday, 3 Oct 1990. Date: 02 Oct 90 23:51:03 EST From: James O'Donnell Subject: SHK 1.0068 Collected Works of Shakespeare Some of the issues raised in the one v. many discussion have wide academic application. I would just call attention to the fact that there is an implicit power principle at work. As teachers, we have the right to teach Shakespeare; but not only that, we have implicitly the additional and remarkable power to specify which of various economic choices our students will make in the pursuit of the study of Shakespeare. If we say Riverside, it is understood that our students will jump and buy Riverside. Are there really no students resourceful enough and clever enough to rummage up paperback editions (or even library copies?) of individual plays, and then to supply themselves with some cheap and serviceable complete edition (perhaps one brought from home, perhaps one picked up at a second-hand store, or something cheap and new like a reprint of the old Oxford Standard Authors edition)? Would any student buy the Oxford Complete Works instead of Riverside? And how would we as teachers react? Curious that in our libertarian times, we not only insist on the canon, but we even insist on the outward form of the canon. (And implicitly, insist on determining to whom the royalties from the students' purchases will go.) Is *that* necessary? Desirable? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 14:39:08 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0071 Paperback Introduction to Shakespeare (25) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 71. Wednesday, 3 Oct 1990. Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 11:14 EDT From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: Paperback Introduction to Shakespeare For anyone interested in a paperback introduction and background to Shakespeare, let me recommend Sam Schoenbaum's *Shakespeare: His Life, His Language, His Theater.* I've read about a third of it, and it appears to be a fine intro for undergraduates. Two weeks ago, I spoke with Professor Schoenbaum and his wife Marilyn during the intermission of Stacey Keach's performance in R3 at the Shakespeare Theatre at the Folger. Professor Schoenbaum was delighted this book sold for less than five bucks (4.95 US and 5.95 Canadan). It is a treasure, reflecting the most current scholarship -- the Red Lion is credited as "the first English custom-built playhouse" and the discovery of the remains of the Rose is discussed. The discovery of the foundation of the Globe is not mentioned, however. Hardy Cook ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 19:17:01 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0072 Classroom Texts (41) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 72. Thursday, 4 Oct 1990. Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 20:36:48 EDT From: Steve Subject: Re: SHK 1.0061 Collected Works vs Paperback Editions Here's a latish reply to the "collected works" talk-about: I try to hit my classes with a variety of editions and styles of text. There's a wonderful comicbook *Macbeth* from Workman press for about $8 US that I used one time, but not again because it was too hard to figure out who was saying what. It was great reading, just bad as a script. And in graduate classes I've on occasion worked solely from xeroxed quartos and Folios. At a nickle or a dime a page, you're setting these troopers on an interesting march into literary documents for a very low cost. In *Books in Print* you can find Avon's complete poems at an unreal price of 60 cents. Yes! So I have everyone get the thing and we read Venus and Adonis, even in my freshman introduction to comp and lit classes. For the wonderful introductory material from the Riverside or ScottFroesman anthologies I razor out those pages and the additional plates and put them in a folder on library reserve. I'm particularly sensitive to costs for my students; CCNY's average family income is about $16000. When our folks work, it's not for pocketmoney, it's to afford pockets. The most conventional source for texts recently has been the Bevington Bantams. Good notes, good current supplementary material, valuable sources. -- Oh, yes. May I suggest a way to avoid that book-bag tilttilt? I razor out individual plays, staple and tape them into neat fascicles, and carry them in a cut-down mailing envelope. When they slip back into the original fat book, the lumps are hardly visible. Students get a little giddy when they see this sacrilege, but aren't we supposed to model that kind of behavior? Yours cordially, Steven Urkowitz English Department, CCNY SURCC@cunyvm ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Oct 90 17:09:50 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0073 Brief Hiatus in SHAKSPER (35) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 73. Tuesday, 9 Oct 1990. Date: Tue, 09 Oct 90 17:07:36 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Brief Hiatus in SHAKSPER Dear fellow SHAKSPEReans; SHAKSPER has been a little quieter than usual these past few days, and perhaps this is largely because I have been kept busy with other, naturally less important matters. Unfortunately, SHAKSPER will be still quieter for the next few days: I will be in Montreal for a non-Shakespearean conference from Thursday, October 11th until Monday, October 15th, so you will hear little from SHAKSPER until next Monday or Tuesday. This announcement comes a day early so that urgent correspondence, either to myself or to the conference, can be transmitted in advance. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this brief hiatus in SHAKSPER might cause. Yours, Ken Steele Editor, SHAKSPER University of Toronto or ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 13:05:30 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0074 New Marlovian Novel (23) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 74. Wednesday, 10 Oct 1990. Date: Tue, 9 Oct 1990 14:35:24 PDT From: Douglas MacGowan Subject: Entered From The Sun Don't know if anybody has seen it or not, but a new novel by George Garrett called "Entered From The Sun" is just out. The center of the whole novel is the murder of Chrisopher Marlowe, and a friend who has read parts of it says it is pretty good. It got a good review in the San Francisco Chronicle's book section, too. - Douglas MacGowan MACGOWAN@NISC.SRI.COM ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Oct 90 00:25:26 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0075 New On-Line Shakespeare Resource! (247) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 75. Saturday, 13 Oct 1990. Date: Sat, 13 Oct 90 00:06:37 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: New On-Line Shakespeare Resource I am pleased to announce a new electronic resource available to Shakespeareans via SHAKSPER: the Shakespeare Electronic Text Archive. This is a 17-megabyte textbase of all 55 authoritative quarto and folio texts of Shakespeare's 38 plays, edited largely from files created by T.H. Howard-Hill in the 1960s for his series of Oxford Shakespeare Concordances. These files were obtained by the University of Toronto's Centre for Computing in the Humanities from the Oxford University Computing Services Text Archive several years ago, since which time I have downloaded, formatted, edited, and indexed the mainframe tapes for use in on-campus networks and on my own desktop PS/2. For reasons of copyright, storage limitation, and software compatibility, it is not possible to make the Text Archive available directly on the Internet or the SHAKSPER Fileserver. However, following the lead of the ANSAXNET Anglo-Saxon Discussion Group, which offers *indirect* access to the Dictionary of Old English corpus at Toronto, SHAKSPER can offer access to the Text Archive in a similar way via email. Queries of any complexity can be addressed to SHAKSPER or myself, and I will return the desired results as promptly as possible. The advantages of this approach for members include minimizing network load and the learning curve. (The disadvantages are essentially mine.) The quarto and folio texts in the Text Archive have been coded with act, scene, and line divisions, stage directions, speech prefixes, pagination, signatures, italicization, and to a limited extent line justification and compositor stints. (All typographical errors are scrupulously retained.) The software currently in use is ETC's WordCruncher text retrieval and analysis program; this permits a variety of search patterns and analysis techniques over the entire corpus. Words, word combinations, word lists, phrases, partial phrases, and even words NOT in combination can be requested. A simple index, keyword in context (KWIC), and/or frequency distribution can be generated throughout the acts and scenes of a play, the plays of a given year, the plays of a given genre, plays published in a particular format, or the corpus as a whole. For example, the results from a test query (for the word "test"), resulted in the following eight references: Computer Book: C:\ETC\SHAKESPE\SHAKESPE.BYB Reference List: test Romeo & Juliet (Q1)-2.4:147; Hamlet (Q2)-3.4:154; Hamlet (F1)-3.4:149; Troilus & Cress (F1)-5.2:141; Measure (F1)-1.1:51; Othello (Q1)-1.3:109; Othello (F1)-1.3:121; Tempest (F1)-4.1:7 In context, these occurrences appear as follows (note that the first reveals itself as something rather unexpected): Computer Book: C:\ETC\SHAKESPE\SHAKESPE.BYB Reference List: test I pro- |l147 test. |l148 Good heart: yfaith Ile tell her so: oh she will be (Romeo & Juliet (Q1) 2.4:147) madnesse |l154 That I haue vttred, bring me to the test, |l155 And the matter will reword, which madnesse |l156 Would gambole from, mother for loue of grace, (Hamlet (Q2) 3.4:154) madnesse |l149 That I haue vttered; bring me to the Test |l150 And I the matter will re- word: which madnesse (Hamlet (F1) 3.4:149) |l140 An esperance so obstinately strong, |l141 That doth inuert that test of eyes and eares; |l142 As if those organs had deceptious functions, |l143 Created onely to calumniate. (Troilus & Cress (F1) 5.2:141) |l50 Now good my Lord |l51 Let there be some more test, made of my mettle, |l52 Before so noble, and so great a figure (Measure (F1) 1.1:51) |l108 To youth this is no proofe, |l109 Without more certaine and more ouert test, |l110 These are thin habits, and poore likelihoods, |l111 Of moderne seemings, you preferre against him. (Othello (Q1) 1.3:109) |l120 To vouch this, is no proofe, |l121 Without more wider, and more #ouer Test |l122 Then these thin habits, and poore likely- hoods (Othello (F1) 1.3:121) |l6 Were but my trials of thy loue, and thou |l7 Hast strangely stood the test: here, afore heauen |l8 I ratifie this my rich guift: O {Ferdinand}, (Tempest (F1) 4.1:7) The following sample frequency distribution will give some idea of another possible output format, and of the texts included in the textbase: Report for: test Total References in List: 8 Frequency -- Percentages -- Range Names Count Actual Expect Difference ----------------------------------------------------- First Folio 5 63% 66% -3% Good Quartos 2 25% 26% -1% Bad Quartos 1 13% 7% 6% Minor Poems 0 0% 2% -2% Comedies 2 25% 27% -2% Histories 0 0% 27% -27% Tragedies 5 63% 31% 32% Romances 1 13% 9% 4% Authorial 4 50% 70% -20% Jacobean 4 50% 30% 20% Prefatory 0 0% 0% 0% Frequency -- Percentages -- Play Count Actual Expect Difference ----------------------------------------------------- Folio Prefaces 0 0% 0% 0% 1 Henry 6 (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% 2 Henry 6 (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% 3 Henry 6 (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% Richard 3 (Q1) 0 0% 2% -2% Richard 3 (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% Venus&Adonis (Mod) 0 0% 1% -1% Comedy of Errors(F1) 0 0% 1% -1% Sonnets (Mod) 0 0% 1% -1% Titus Andronicus(Q1) 0 0% 2% -2% Titus Andronicus(F1) 0 0% 2% -2% Taming the Shrew (F1 0 0% 2% -2% Two Gentlemen (F1) 0 0% 1% -1% Love's Labours (Q1) 0 0% 2% -2% Love's Labours (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% King John (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% Richard 2 (Q1) 0 0% 2% -2% Richard 2 (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% Romeo & Juliet (Q1) 1 13% 1% 12% Romeo & Juliet (Q2) 0 0% 2% -2% Romeo & Juliet (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% Midsummer (Q1) 0 0% 1% -1% Midsummer (F1) 0 0% 1% -1% Merchant of Ven (Q1) 0 0% 2% -2% Merchant of Ven (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% 1 Henry 4 (Q1) 0 0% 2% -2% 1 Henry 4 (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% Merry Wives (Q1) 0 0% 1% -1% Merry Wives (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% 2 Henry 4 (Q1) 0 0% 2% -2% 2 Henry 4 (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% Much Ado (Q1) 0 0% 2% -2% Much Ado (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% Henry 5 (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% Julius Caesar (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% As You Like It (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% Hamlet (Q1) 0 0% 1% -1% Hamlet (Q2) 1 13% 2% 11% Hamlet (F1) 1 13% 2% 11% Twelfth Night (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% Troilus & Cress (Q1) 0 0% 2% -2% Troilus & Cress (F1) 1 13% 2% 11% All's Well (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% Measure (F1) 1 13% 2% 11% Othello (Q1) 1 13% 2% 11% Othello (F1) 1 13% 2% 11% King Lear (Q1) 0 0% 2% -2% King Lear (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% Macbeth (F1) 0 0% 1% -1% Antony (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% Coriolanus (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% Timon (F) 0 0% 2% -2% Pericles(Q1) 0 0% 1% -1% Cymbeline (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% Winter's Tale (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% Tempest (F1) 1 13% 1% 12% Henry 8 (F1) 0 0% 2% -2% 2 Noble Kinsmen (Q1) 0 0% 2% -2% SHAKSPEReans are welcome to post queries to the conference as a whole, or privately. Parallel searches can also be performed on the Shakespeare Text Archive and the WordCruncher Riverside Shakespeare, and/or a public-domain King James Bible. None of these texts is guaranteed to be flawless, of course (see "RIVERSID ERRORS" for a summary of errors even in the commercial product); it is strongly recommended that results be verified manually prior to publishing research based upon them. (This process of verification, however, is simply a matter of checking specific references -- not scouring the canon, as would be required otherwise!) [For further information and examples of the Archive's potential, members can retrieve the files "DYNAMIC SHAKSPER" and "WCRUNCHR SHAKSPER" from the SHAKSPER Fileserver.] Members with intriguing queries are also invited to share them with the entire conference; the results may prompt interesting discussion. It is my sincere hope that this research tool will make SHAKSPER a more valuable resource for Shakespeareans worldwide, encouraging increases in scholarly membership, organizational endorsement, and active discussion. Additional suggestions for electronic resources which could be shared or distributed via SHAKSPER are, as always, most welcome. Yours, Ken Steele Editor, SHAKSPER University of Toronto or [P.S. This file will be stored on the SHAKSPER Fileserver as ARCHIVE ANNOUNCE SHAKSPER.] ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 10:13:43 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0076 Current Membership List (131) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 76. Sunday, 14 Oct 1990. Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 10:10:22 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Current Members of SHAKSPER SHAKSPER's membership has tripled since I first distributed a membership listing, and it seems appropriate to remind (inform) us all who we are again, and with whom we're speaking. I should also remind you that you can retrieve the first two files of SHAKSPERean biographies from the Fileserver: they are SHAKSPER BIOGRAFY SHAKSPER and SHAKS-00 BIOGRAFY SHAKSPER. Also, if you request the BIOGRAFY PACKAGE SHAKSPER from the Fileserver, you will be sent these files and BIOGRAFY EXEC, a simple VMS program for retrieving specific biographies from multiple files. Following is the listing of current members of the Shakespeare Electronic Conference. The list is automatically generated by Listserv, alphabetically by email Node. Any member of SHAKSPER can obtain an updated membership listing at any time by issuing the interactive command, "TELL LISTSERV@UTORONTO REVIEW SHAKSPER", or sending the mail command, "REVIEW SHAKSPER" to LISTSERV@ UTORONTO. Note that this file is not equivalent to the Biography files, also maintained on the SHAKSPER Fileserver. All members agree that this membership list is private, and is not to be distributed, in whole or in part, outside the membership of SHAKSPER. (c) 1990 SHAKSPER. Please advise the editor of any errors and/or corrections. SHAKSPER Electronic Conference - created 16 July 90 Country Subscribers ------- ----------- ??? 20 Canada 6 France 1 Japan 1 Korea 1 USA 45 Total number of "concealed" subscribers: 6 Total number of users subscribed to the list: 74 (non-"concealed" only) Total number of countries represented: 6 (non-"concealed" only) Total number of nodes represented: 64 (non-"concealed" only) R1NR@AKRONVM Nicholas Ranson FFJL@ALASKA Janis Lull HDCHICKERING@AMHERST Howell D. Chickering GW0F@ANDREW.CMU.EDU Gary Waller LSEFTON@APPLE.COM Laurie Sefton CALIFFMA@BAYLOR Mary Elaine Califf HMCOOK@BOE.TOWSON.EDU Hardy M. Cook EL407007@BROWNVM Bill Sklar WOMWRITE@BROWNVM Elaine Brennan PHLCSW@BYUVM Camille S. Williams jim_sexton@CC.SFU.CA Jim Sexton AL279@CLEVELAND.FREENET.EDU Judy Drotleff leosborn@COLBY.EDU Laurie E. Osborne TOM@CS.FAU.EDU Tom Horton COSMOS@CUA Spencer Cosmos WRIGHTS@CUA Stephen Wright MCCARTHY@CUAVAXA William J. McCarthy SURCC@CUNYVM Steven Urkowitz BRAITH@FRPERP51 Keith Braithwaite ELIASON@GACVAX1 Eric Eliason RASTLEY@GALLUA Russell Astley NEUMAN@GUVAX Michael Neuman WILDER@GUVAX Jim Wilderotter GILMORE@GWUVM Matthew B. Gilmore mason@HABS11.ENET.DEC.COM Gary F. Mason DORENKAMP@HLYCROSS John H. Dorenkamp HWHALL@HLYCROSS Helen Whall CSC3CSB@HOFSTRA Chris Backa COX@HOPE John D. Cox FAC_MDHAWTHO@JMUVAX1 Mark D. Hawthorne KY9812@JPNSUT20 Akio Tanaka JONGSOOK@KRSNUCC1 Jongsook Lee JS525871I@LIUVAX Jeannette M. Schaffrath Thomas.H.Luxon@MAC.DARTMOUTH.EDU Tom Luxon HAMMOND@MCMASTER Antony Hammond DS001451@NDSUVM1 Ray Wheeler MACGOWAN@NISC.SRI.COM Douglas MacGowan A10PRR1@NIU Philip Rider TB0WPW1@NIU William Proctor Williams UDLE031@OAK.CC.KCL.AC.UK Stephen Roy Miller SCB4768@OBERLIN Christopher Budd FLANNAGA@OUACCVMB Roy Flannagan JODONNEL@PENNSAS.UPENN.EDU James O'Donnell sinowitz@PILOT.NJIN.NET Jonah Sinowitz PJP23@PITTVMS Paul J. Pival RABRAMS@PORTLAND Rick Abrams SBYATES@PUCC Stan Yates AUDRA@QCVAXA Audra_Graber & Fred_Herman SDMGLA@RITVAX.ISC.RIT.EDU Stanley D. McKenzie GA0708@SIUCVMB Herbert S. Donow LEE@SQARC.SQ.COM Liam Quin JLH5651@TAMVENUS James_L_Harner & Harrison_T_Meserole JMORRIS@UALTAVM John Morris HART@UIUCVMD Michael S. Hart NEURINGER@UKANVAX Charles Neuringer RWILLIS@UKANVAX Ron Willis MH@UMNACVX Michael Hancher TSC@UMNACVX Thomas Clayton STARMAN@UNC Thomas W. Hocking ENG003@UNOMA1 Judith E. Boss FAC0287@UOFT01 Paul Fritz CSHUNTER@UOGUELPH C.S. Hunter CREAMER@URVAX Kevin J.T. Creamer YOUNG@UTOREPAS Abigail Ann Young HAG@UVMVM Hope Greenberg NMILLER@VAX1.TRINCOLL.EDU Norman Miller shand@VENUS.YORKU.CA Skip Shand KKM7M@VIRGINIA Karen Kates Marshall KSTEELE@VM.EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Ken Steele mccarty@VM.EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Willard McCarty WARKENT@VM.EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Germaine Warkentin DS014805@VM1.NODAK.EDU Hardin Aasand MATSUBA@WRITER.YORKU.CA Stephen Matsuba BOLTON@ZODIAC.RUTGERS.EDU Whitney Bolton ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 14:24:01 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0077 Query: Olivier AYLI? (16) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 77. Sunday, 14 Oct 1990. Date: 14 October 1990, 12:43:04 EST From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB A query: does anyone know an easy way to acquire the not-very-good film version of *As You Like It* with Laurence Olivier? The director was Paul Czinner, Rosalind his wife Elisabeth Bergner, and the film so poor in Olivier's estimation that he did not mention it in his autobiography. Roy Flannagan ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 18:32:07 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0078 Answer to Query: Olivier's AYLI (18) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 78. Sunday, 14 Oct 1990. Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 19:14:57 EDT From: "JANIS LULL" Subject: RE: SHK 1.0077 Query: Olivier AYLI? I have a copy of the Olivier AYL that I got from Publisher's Central Bureau a few years ago. Such discount houses often have old Shakespeare films on video for not much money, though of course, particular offerings come and go. You might write Publisher's Central Bureau if you don't see it advertised in some such place. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 12:50:32 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0079 Query: Textual / Revision Studies? (50) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 79. Monday, 15 Oct 1990. Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 12:48:09 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Revision / Textual Studies? As many of you may already know (it's in the biography files, after all...), I am currently researching a doctoral thesis on textual evidence for small-scale revisions in Shakespeare's early plays (what I like to call "poetic" revisions, as distinct from the broader and more striking "dramatic" revisions, although of course such a distinction is wholly artificial and furthermore rather misleading). The title is the only thing about which I have yet to have second thoughts: "The Second Heat Upon the Muse's Anvil: Poetic Revision in Shakespeare's Early Plays." (Of course, that whole subtitle really needs heavy rewriting...) Anyway, the tunnel at the end of which there currently seems to be no light is one in which I am digging for every crumb of textual scholarship which might be remotely relevant to my work. I would be very interested in obtaining (or exchanging) electronic bibliographies with anyone who might have such a list already (e.g. a list of textual studies in a long-forgotten bibliography file, a list of works cited which touches on the subject of revision, etc.) This might be particularly easy for scholars who maintain electronic databases rather than card files of critical works, but this may still be relatively uncommon. Alternatively, I would appreciate notes on recent Shakespeareantextualrevisional articles and/or books or theses which seem particularly radical, fascinating, or useful. (And please don't be so modest that you fail to mention works of your own which I should see). In particular, extremely recent or obscure journals or festschriften may well have escaped my notice. These responses in particular might go directly to the conference, as they could be interesting to others as well. Yours, Ken Steele University of Toronto or ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 14:47:52 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0080 Copyright & Electronic Texts (95) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 80. Monday, 15 Oct 1990. (1) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 13:20:12 EDT (15 lines) From: "Michael S. Hart" Subject: Re: SHK 1.0075 New On-Line Shakespeare Resource! (2) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 13:46:46 EDT (62 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Copyright and OTA Texts (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 13:20:12 EDT From: "Michael S. Hart" Subject: Re: SHK 1.0075 New On-Line Shakespeare Resource! Am I to understand, that as an accurate representation of the originals, including typos, that the markup you have added could be removed, and as the US Copy Office has advised me, the resulting document would still be in the Public Domain? Would you have any objections to this? Will you please post this note. Michael S. Hart (2) --------------------------------------------------------------37---- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 13:46:46 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Copyright and OTA Texts Michael Hart's question is understandable; the original quarto and folio texts, without correction to inverted characters, added lineation, or editorial interpretation of any kind, are not susceptible to copyright and are in the public domain. The issue of copyright, however, is not the sole issue regarding the distribution of texts obtained from the Oxford University Computing Services Electronic Text Archive. Every scholar who obtains copies of the Howard-Hill text files from Oxford must sign a license agreement, guaranteeing that the texts will not be distributed to others The legal question here is not copyright law, but contract law. I, and others at the CCH, have entered into a contractual obligation with the OTA, and are bound both by law and by ethics. The situation is very similar with purchasers of electronic texts from the WordCruncher people, Electronic Text Corporation. ETC offers many electronic texts for use with WordCruncher which are in the public domain -- for example, the CD-ROM which includes the Constitution Papers of the USA. If one were to reverse-engineer the textbase, and strip out editorial alterations, one would have a sort of public domain text -- but one would have violated the license agreement at several levels. Furthermore, it is not entirely clear that no copyright violation would be involved in such a scenario. Computerized texts have challenged copyright legislation around the world, and every country is responding differently to that challenge. It clearly made little difference whether a publisher set type from the original Constitution papers or from an exact reprint -- in both cases the text was in the public domain. When the reprint is an electronic text, however, the labour involved in accurately keyboarding the text is considerably greater than the few moments it might take to duplicate the disks. Perhaps a useful analogy would be this: it is legal to photocopy the constitution papers (I assume -- unless special legislation prevents this as it prevents burning the flag) but it is not legal to photocopy a modern published version. Copyright legislation has responded to the advent of the photocopier by recognizing that intellectual property rights also exist in the typography and layout of an edition, even when the text itself is public domain. Doubtless legislation will eventually resolve the complications of copyright in electronic texts as well -- but the University of Toronto, the Oxford Text Archive, and myself do not want to be any part of the precedent-setting case. The issue of electronic copyright is a complicated one, and one which often makes for interesting discussion. However, I feel obliged to observe that the topic is well beyond the scope of SHAKSPER's purpose, and to suggest that HUMANIST or GUTNBERG are the more appropriate forums for the discussion. Yours, Ken Steele University of Toronto or ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 23:35:21 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0081 Possessive Proper Nouns (140) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 81. Monday, 15 Oct 1990. Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 23:32:54 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Possessives and Apostrophes On HUMANIST tonight, Roy Flannagan posed the following question: Query about c-17 compositors and apostrophes with italics. A weird question for anyone on the list who can answer it. I have noticed that the compositors who set *Paradise Lost* rarely, if ever, used apostrophes with possessive nouns unless they happened to be setting proper names in italics, proper names that happened to be in the possessive. Does anyone who has messed around with early printing methods or with setting their own books in hand-presses have any explanation for this? The type face for the 1667 and 1674 editions was a form of Garamond and the point size about ten. Thanks for any help. My apologies for responding here on SHAKSPER -- but I'm not going to pretend to answer Roy's query, only to use it to demonstrate the Shakespeare Text Archive's potential applicability to such bibliographical questions. A quick check of the Archive suggests that this tendency may be more widespread than one might think. There are a great many instances of *'s in Shakespeare's original texts -- 4332 to be exact -- and they are distributed as follows: Frequency -- Percentages -- Range Names Count Actual Expect Diff ----------------------------------------------------- First Folio 3280 76% 66% 10% Good Quartos 596 14% 26% -12% Bad Quartos 183 4% 7% -3% Minor Poems 273 6% 2% 4% Comedies 1104 25% 27% -2% Histories 588 14% 27% -13% Tragedies 1615 37% 31% 6% Romances 683 16% 9% 7% Jacobean 2222 51% 30% 21% Prefatory 5 0% 0% 0% The concentration of apostrophes (of all kinds) seems *significantly* higher in the Folio texts, in the plays composed in the Jacobean period, and in the "later" genres (Tragedies and Romances), all of which suggest an increasing use of the punctuation mark. (I have found similar results for the use of the semicolon, which surges in the Folio texts.) Of course, most of these occurrences are not possessives but contractions, and a manual weeding-out of all 4332 would be a little tiresome at this hour of the night. Using words beginning with the letters A through C, however, as a somewhat random sampling (can you tell I'm no statistician?) we find a grand total of 69 *possessives* (all proper names, incidentally) which use an apostrophe: alecto's, angelo's, anthonie's, anthonio's, antonio's, apollo's, appollo's, ariachna's, art's, astrea's, attalanta's, austria's, banquo's, bassanio's, bassiano's, bellona's, bianca's, bohemia's, calcha's, calcho's, calphurnia's, camillo's, caska's, cassandra's, cassio's, cato's, claudio's, cleopatra's, cytherea's These 69 possessives are distributed as follows: Frequency -- Percentages -- Range Names Count Actual Expect Difference ----------------------------------------------------- First Folio 59 86% 66% 20% Good Quartos 8 12% 26% -14% Bad Quartos 0 0% 7% -7% Minor Poems 2 3% 2% 1% Comedies 20 29% 27% 2% Histories 3 4% 27% -23% Tragedies 28 41% 31% 10% Romances 9 13% 9% 4% Authorial 51 74% 70% 4% Jacobean 37 54% 30% 24% Prefatory 0 0% 0% 0% Again, we see significantly higher occurrences in the First Folio and later plays. In confirmation of Roy's findings, all but *three* of these 69 apostrophes occur in italics. The three notable exceptions, which perhaps prove the rule, are all from the Folio: Reuenge from Ebon den, with fell Alecto's Snake, for (2 Henry 4 (F1) 5.5:35) Cleopatra's {Maiestie:} (As You Like It (F1) 3.2:141) Attalanta's {better part}, (As You Like It (F1) 3.2:142) Furthermore, note that the two occurrences from AYLI are roman type *in italic verse* -- in short, the apostrophes are used in an italic context, although the proper names are in roman type. (I should point out that italicization in this textbase is indicated through the use of curly braces.) Of these 69 apostrophized possessives, then, only one, Pistol's ranting prose, actually occurs outside italics: Reuenge from Ebon den, with fell Alecto's Snake, for (2 Henry 4 (F1) 5.5:35) This seems overwhelming (though statistically a little vague) confirmation of Roy's observation -- but does anyone have any explanations? Shakespeare's compositors clearly did *not* avoid the apostrophe in roman type -- they *often* use it for contractions. Only when dealing with possessives do they seem so particular -- the apostrophe is used only with possessive proper nouns, which are almost always italicized. Was the apostrophe thought unnecessary when dealing with possessive ordinary nouns? And why does Pistol merit one in roman type? For that matter, why isn't Alecto italicized? Abbott's *Grammar* doesn't seem to help here, and now I'm curious too. Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 11:26:16 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0082 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver (153) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 82. Tuesday, 16 Oct 1990. (1) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 10:12:24 EDT (19 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Text Archive List on SHAKSPER Fileserver (2) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 11:09:06 EDT (114 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Contents of the SHAKSPER Fileserver (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 10:12:24 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Text Archive List on SHAKSPER Fileserver In response to recent interest in the origin of the Shakespeare quarto and folio texts, I have placed a select catalogue of medieval and renaissance English texts from the Oxford Text Archive on the SHAKSPER Fileserver. This file begins with a description of the Archive's resources and aims, ordering information, and an email address for further assistance. It then lists several hundred texts of relevance to Shakespeare studies which are available from the OTA. These include substantial collections of works by Shakespeare, Marlowe, Dekker, Greene, Kyd, Marston, Middleton, and Webster. SHAKSPEReans can retrieve this file by issuing the interactive command TELL LISTSERV AT UTORONTO GET OXFORD ARCHIVE SHAKSPER, or the equivalent in a mail message command (see your SHAKSPER GUIDE for further information, or contact the editor). (2) --------------------------------------------------------------120--- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 11:09:06 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: Contents of the SHAKSPER Fileserver The Current Contents of the SHAKSPER Fileserver ----------------------------------------------- Because the list of files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver which is generated automatically by ListServ can be somewhat cryptic (particularly as there is virtually no room for annotation), this list has been prepared manually to offer further assistance. SHAKSPEReans can obtain an updated version of this listing by issuing the command TELL LISTSERV AT UTORONTO GET SHAKSPER FILES SHAKSPER, or the mail message equivalent (see your SHAKSPER GUIDE for further details, or contact the editor). File Package for New Members: ------------------------------------------------------------------- NEWMEMBR PACKAGE Order this file to receive the package SHAKSPER GUIDE The User Manual for members of SHAKSPER SHAKSPER MEMBERS A recent list of SHAKSPER members SHAKSPER FILES This file, describing the Fileserver's contents The New Member Package also includes recent SHAKSPER Logbooks and the Member Biography files (though not the program). Member Biography File(s) and Retrieval Program: ------------------------------------------------------------------- BIOGRAFY PACKAGE Order this file to receive the package SHAKSPER BIOGRAFY The first file of SHAKSPER member biographies SHAKS-00 BIOGRAFY The second file of SHAKSPER member biographies BIOGRAFY EXEC A CMS retrieval program for the SHAKSPER biography files, by Jim Coombs BIOGRAFY HELPCMS A help file for the CMS biography program Announcements: -------------------------------------------------------------------- TOKYO TRAVEL Shakespeare Association of America Travel Plan for 1991 International Shakespeare Association World Congress in Tokyo, Japan TOKYO CONFERNC International Shakespeare Association Programme for 1991 World Congress in Tokyo, Japan VANCOUVR CONFERNC Shakespeare Association of America Programme for 1991 Annual Meeting in Vancouver, BC, Canada Reference Files: -------------------------------------------------------------------- OXFORD ARCHIVE Medieval & Renaissance English electronic texts available from the Oxford Text Archive RIVERSID ERRORS A listing of errors in the Electronic Text Corporation WordCruncher Riverside Shakespeare Scholarly Papers: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Hardy M. Cook. "A Shakespearean in the Electronic Study." A paper submitted to the computing approaches seminar of the 1990 SAA conference in Philadelphia. (ELECTRON STUDY) Thomas B. Horton. (Thesis Abstract) A stylometric analysis of Shakespeare and Fletcher. (STYLOMET FLETCHER) Stephen Matsuba. "`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) Stanley D. McKenzie, "The Prudence and Kinship of Prince Hal and John of Lancaster in 2 Henry IV." (PRUDENCE KINSHIP) Kenneth B. Steele. "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) Gary Waller, "Teaching the Late Plays as Family Romance." (FAMILY ROMANCE) Shakespeare Electronic Text Archive Information: ------------------------------------------------------------------- ARCHIVE ANNOUNCE A SHAKSPER Announcement of a new on-line resource for members -- the Shakespeare Electronic Text Archive, a textbase of original quarto and folio texts Kenneth B. Steele. "`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) SHAKSPER Monthly Logbooks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- All conference transmissions are automatically logged by ListServ in rather mechanically-named monthly notebooks. SHAKSPER LOG9007 July 1990 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9008 August 1990 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9009 September 1990 Logbook SHAKSPER LOG9010 October 1990 Logbook ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 90 19:47:29 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0083 Compositor Studies (21) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 83. Wednesday, 17 Oct 1990. Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 16:39 CDT From: TB0WPW1@NIU.BITNET Subject: text/compositors To Shaksper In the recent past George Walton Williams had a graduate student who was working on a complete list of compositor studies. Does anyone know if a similar work is in hand? Would it not help a great deal in the discussion which we have just had on SHAKSPER? WILLIAM PROCTOR WILLIAMS ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 17:56:03 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0084 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver (37) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 84. Wednesday, 24 Oct 1990. Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 17:39:18 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver (Please accept my apologies for the short, unannounced hiatus in SHAKSPER.) Today I have added two short announcement files to the SHAKSPER Fileserver. SHAKSPER ANNOUNCE is basically the information file you received if you sent the "SUBscribe" command to LISTSERV@utoronto, and is posted so that members can more easily redistribute it to interested non-members. FICINO ANNOUNCE is an information file and application form for the new FICINO electronic seminar, edited by Willard McCarty for the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies (CRRS) here at the University of Toronto. SHAKSPER and FICINO are posting both of these announcements in reciprocal cooperation. SHAKSPEReans can retrieve files or logbooks from the SHAKSPER Fileserver by issuing the interactive command, "TELL LISTSERV AT UTORONTO GET fname ftype SHAKSPER". If your network link does not support the interactive "TELL" command, or if Listserv rejects your request, then send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@utoronto, reading "GET fname ftype SHAKSPER". For further information, consult the appropriate section of your SHAKSPER GUIDE, or contact the editor, or . ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 10:16:13 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0085 Update from the Rose Theatre Site (61) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 85. Thursday, 25 Oct 1990. Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 09:03:34 EDT From: UDLE031@OAK.CC.KCL.AC.UK Subject: The Rose Theatre 25 October 1990 [Personal correspondence deleted here. The remainder of this note should be of interest to all members of SHAKSPER. KS] For the Rose and Globe sites I do not have a great deal to report. Last week I walked past the sites for the first time in weeks. The building site over the Rose is very active and the office block has risen at least 12 levels above the site if not more. But at least the nearer to finishing, the sooner archaeologists may hope to inspect the damage done in the past year (much worse than anything done in the past 300+ years). Tuesday evening, 16 Oct, C. Walter Hodges, the artist currently providing drawings for the Cambridge Shakespeare, gave an illustrated talk to the Society for Theatre Research to a packed house at Queens Square here in London. He entertained listeners with accounts of his struggle to turn the paltry visual evidence of the first London playhouses into drawings that fill in the gaps. This became particularly interesting last year when the archaeological evidence started altering things. He even added an appendix to one of the Cambridge editions of the Henry 6 plays (Part 1, I think) to illustrate how the Rose discovery had altered his ideas with its smaller, shallower stage. Especially difficult to reconcile was the IRREGULARITY of the groundplan. His crisp drawings of a regular 14-sided polygon suddenly developed a curious bulge as the back mushroomed out when he began incorporating the alterated foundations of 1592. The latest drawings have had to make sense of the fact that Henslowe seems to have had his front entrance placed too close to the ditch running just before Maid Lane. And it seems that the Heavens with descending throne were not present in phase one. Hodges paid great praise to Harvey Sheldon of the Greater London Archaeological Unit of the Museum of London and the two young archaeologists who unearthed our first physical evidence of the early theatres in modern times, Julian Bowsher and Simon Blatherwick. He lamented the fact that they were replaced on the project by archaeologists more directly under the control of the government minister. A book describing the Rose discovery, *The Rose Theatre* by Christine Eccles is to be published today. There is some hope that information about the proposed museum for the Rose site will begin to appear eventually, but I do not know when. Stephen Miller UDLE031@UK.AC.KCL.CC.OAK King's College London ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 13:17:29 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0086 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver (52) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 86. Thursday, 25 Oct 1990. Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 11:35:21 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver Today I have added three files to the "Reference Files" area of the SHAKSPER Fileserver. OXFORD ARCHIVE is an updated list of medieval and renaissance English texts available through the Oxford Text Archive. This new version of the file includes very valuable descriptive information, regarding the origin and format of the texts available. OXFORD BROCHURE is a general introduction to the Oxford Text Archive, accompanied by order forms and ordering information. WATERLOO TEXTBASE contains detailed information supplied by the Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary, at the University of Waterloo, Ontario. The project has adapted the Oxford University Press electronic Complete Works of William Shakespeare (modern spelling) for use with the retrieval software used for the generation of the new OED. This file also includes a summary of the project, which recently appeared in *Canadian Humanities Computing* 4.3 (September 1990). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Fileserver Procedures: SHAKSPEReans can retrieve files or logbooks from the SHAKSPER Fileserver by issuing the interactive command, "TELL LISTSERV AT UTORONTO GET fname ftype SHAKSPER". If your network link does not support the interactive "TELL" command, or if Listserv rejects your request, then send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@utoronto, reading "GET fname ftype SHAKSPER". For a complete list of files available, send the command "GET SHAKSPER FILES SHAKSPER" to obtain an annotated index. (Note that the "INDEX SHAKSPER" and "GET FILELIST SHAKSPER" commands will result in an *un*annotated list generated automatically by Listserv. These lists include size information, but are less legible to human eyes.) For further information, consult the appropriate section of your SHAKSPER GUIDE, or contact the editor, or . ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 17:25:18 EDT Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0087 World Shakespeare Bibliography (146) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 87. Thursday, 25 Oct 1990. (1) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 17:15:25 EDT (15 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: A Word of Explanation (2) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 09:34:19 EDT (53 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: World Shakespeare Bibliography (3) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 14:40:54 EDT (55 lines) From: JLH5651@VENUS.TAMU.EDU Subject: World Shakespeare Bibliography (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 17:15:25 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: A Word of Explanation Dear Fellow SHAKSPEReans; Although I sent the following correspondence to Professors Harner and Meserole privately, it was evidently taken as a public inquiry to which they have responded in a public form, so I here reprint both sides of the exchange for the conference as a whole. I welcome suggestions and comments from any and all members, and encourage responses to the queries posed below. Ken Steele University of Toronto (2) --------------------------------------------------------------55---- Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 09:34:19 EDT From: Ken Steele Subject: World Shakespeare Bibliography Dear Professors Harner & Meserole; Now that the initial frenzy of organizing SHAKSPER appears to have subsided, I have turned my attention to broadening the scope of electronic resources which the conference can make available to Shakespearean scholars. The Shakespeare Text Archive is one such resource, I believe; a valuable tool which is not available elsewhere without considerable inconvenience and/or expense. Hopefully the SHAKSPER Fileserver can also become a repository of interesting and valuable information, conference papers, essays, and articles. Although I was very interested in Professor Harner's paper on the recomputerization of the World Shakespeare Bibliography, submitted to Camille Williams' seminar at the Philadelphia SAA, it occurs to me that I have not inquired further about the project. Doubtless many other SHAKSPEReans would also be intrigued to know more about the possible release of the WSB on CD-ROM. Does the SAA paper still reflect the latest word? Would it be possible to mount an electronic version of this paper on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, or to publish a revised version to the conference at large? And in a broader sense, are there ways in which SHAKSPER and the WSB can be of mutual assistance? Obviously SHAKSPER is still a fledgling, but I hope that within months or years it will become a vital part of the SAA and ISA, and will offer sufficient resources to draw still more scholars to networking. Could the WSB make use of a pool of electronic correspondents, reporting or annotating new publications? Does the WSB have electronic booklists or materials which could be mounted on the Fileserver, or databases which could be made available indirectly, so long as the number of requests was kept manageable? You can probably see the ways in which my mind is working, and I suspect that you have a fairly good sense of the present state and future potential of SHAKSPER. I'd appreciate your suggestions, comments, and responses. And incidentally, if you know of Shakespearean scholars on Bitnet with whom I have not been in touch, I would appreciate that information as well. Thanks for your time and consideration. Yours, Ken Steele Editor, SHAKSPER University of Toronto or (3) --------------------------------------------------------------68---- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 14:40:54 EDT From: JLH5651@VENUS.TAMU.EDU Subject: World Shakespeare Bibliography My apologies to fellow SHAKSPEReans for the delay in responding to Ken Steele's inquiry of 14 October. Since we are now preparing to close the files on the 1989 Bibliography, even electronic mail sometimes remains unopened. Yes, Jim Harner's SAA paper still reflects the latest word on the recomputerization of the World Shakespeare Bibliography. (If SHAKSPEReans are interested, we can certainly transmit a copy to the SHAKSPER Fileserver.) We do intend to make the WSB available on CD-ROM (and, in fact, are negotiating right now for the production of the massive *Cumulative Shakespeare Bibliography 1958-1979* [CSB] on CD-ROM) and, possibly, on disks. Producing electronic versions will, though, have to await our implementation of a new database system. Indeed there are ways that SHAKSPER and WSB can be of mutual assistance. 1. We would welcome offprints of--or at least information about--the publications of SHAKSPEReans and their colleagues. 2. We would welcome information about publications, films, productions--in short, anything related to Shakespeare--that we might overlook in our search of journals, catalogs of new books, and the like. We're especially interested in details of productions, newspaper reviews of productions and books, and articles in general-interest periodicals. 3. We would welcome assistance from SHAKSPEReans who read the "lesser-known" languages (i.e., languages other than English, French, German, and Spanish) and who have access to journal collections in these languages. 4. We would welcome help in tracking down the occasional publication that eludes our Committee of Internationl Correspondents. For example, we're now looking for the following items: Ardat, Ahmad K. "Signifier, Signified, and Multiplicity of Context." *Journal of English* 16 (Sept. 1988): 25-41. Dolc, Miguel. "El *Hamlet* de Terenci Moix." *La Vanguardia* 8 Oct. 1981: 44. Ke, Fei. "A Veteran Translator on Translation of Shakespeare." *Foreign Language Teaching and Research* 1 (March 1988): 46-51. 5. In general, we would welcome any assistance that would allow us to serve the international community of Shakespeare scholars. James L. Harner Harrison T. Meserole Editors, WSB ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 10:37:55 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0088 Creative Anachronisms Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 88. Tuesday, 30 Oct 1990. Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 13:42:58 CST From: Hardin Aasand Subject: Creative Anachronisms Ken, Could you or any fellow Shakespeareans respond to the following query: one of my Survey of British Lit. students desires to become a member of a creative anachronism group. Do you know of any up here in the Midwest, specifically in North Dakota? I know that one existed in Toronto when I was there, and I am hoping that perhaps a group has extended to the hinterland of the Great Plains states. Thanks for your help. Hardin Aasand DS014805 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 14:56:48 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0089 Creative Anachronisms in USA Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 89. Wednesday, 31 Oct 1990. Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 13:08:00 EST From: "Thomas W Hocking" Subject: Re: SHK 1.0088 Creative Anachronisms As a matter of fact, there is a "creative anachronism" group in the USA--the same one as you were familiar with in Toronto. The name of the organization is THE SOCIETY FOR CREATIVE ANACHRONISM, INC. They (or should I say "We"--I'm a member) are headquartered in Milpitas, CA. Branches can be found the world over. Send private e-mail to me for more information. Tom Hocking Chapel Hill, NC/USA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 90 16:04:24 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0090 "Voodoo" Macbeth Query Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 90. Monday, 5 Nov 1990. Date: Sun, 4 Nov 90 19:30:00 EST From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: Information about "Voodoo" MACBETH A colleague of mine is researching the 1936 "Voodoo" *Macbeth*; he has searched the Lincoln Center archives and is presently going through the materials at the Fenwick Library at George Mason University. He is particularly interested in the following: * the reception of the production afforded by the New York theatrical community; * the comments of Orson Welles, the director, regarding the above and his motive for casting blacks; * the reactions of others to the production; * possible revisions of original opinions by theatre critics of the time; and * governmental comments and reactions. If anyone can help him, please contact me by e-mail (HMCOOK@BOE.TOWSON.EDU) or write to Elliott Moffitt, Department of Humanities and Fine Arts, Bowie State University, Bowie, Maryland 20715. Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 90 20:10:29 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0091 Elizabethan Fencing Practice (75) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 91. Monday, 5 Nov 1990. (1) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 90 19:19:36 EST (19 lines) From: Tom Horton Subject: Fencing in Shakespeare (2) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 90 20:07:47 EST (38 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Elizabethan Fencing Handbooks (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 90 19:19:36 EST From: Tom Horton Subject: Fencing in Shakespeare A student of mine has become interested in the topic of fencing in works by Shakespeare. I believe an article in a recent Shakespeare Quarterly sparked this off, but he has asked me to post a request for any help in information on how he might find more on this. Even the most basic help will be appreciated. He's just an undergraduate, and I'm just a computer scientist, you see. Tom Horton Department of Computer Science Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, FL 33431 USA Phone: 407/367-2674 FAX: 407/367-2800 INTERNET: tom@cs.fau.edu BITNET: HortonT@fauvax (2) --------------------------------------------------------------42---- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 90 20:07:47 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Elizabethan Fencing Handbooks Tom Horton's student is referring to James L. Jackson's article in *Shakespeare Quarterly* 41:3 (Fall 1990), pp. 281-98: "'They Catch One Another's Rapiers': The Exchange of Weapons in *Hamlet*." Jackson's footnotes offer far more references to fencing sources than any annotated bibliographies at my disposal. The most important and promising of these texts are the following (in chronological order): *Giacomo Di Grassi his true Arte of Defence* (London, 1594) *Vincentio Saviolo his Practice* (London, 1595) George Silver, *Paradoxes of Defence* (London, 1599) Egerton Castle, *Schools and Masters of Fence* (London: G. Bell & Sons, 1910). Robert E. Morsberger, *Swordplay and the Elizabethan and Jacobean Stage*, Jacobean Drama Studies 37 (Salzburg, Austria: Universitat Salzburg, 1974). Doubtless the Morsberger book will offer a more comprehensive bibliography. Hope this is of some help; I renew Tom's invitation to other SHAKSPEReans to contribute additional information. Yours, Ken Steele University of Toronto or ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 12:17:45 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0092 Swordplay Sources (Cont'd) (26) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 92. Tuesday, 6 Nov 1990. Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 08:24:38 EST From: Nicholas Ranson Subject: Re: SHK 1.0091 Elizabethan Fencing Practice Tom Horton's reference to the swordplay: the article is in Shakespeare Quarterly 41 (1990): 281-298, "The Exchange of Weapons in Hamlet." There are many good leads in the footnotes themselves. The contemporary manuals there referred to are: Giacomo Di Grassi his true Arte of Defence (London, 1594); Vincentio Saviolo his Practice (London, 1595); George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence (London, 1599). These three texts are available in the various microfilm reels made of the Early English Books 1475-1640 (Short Title Catalogue base), published by University Microfilms; use the cross-index volume after identifying the title in the STC. The old volume was Egerton Castle's Schools and Masters of Fence (1893). The final source mentioned by James Jackson in SQ is Robert E. Morsberger, Swordplay and the Elizabethan and Jacobean Stage, Jacobean Drama Studies 37 (Salzburg, Austria: Universitat Salburg, 1974) Good luck. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 90 12:12:03 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0093 Folger Bibliographer Wanted? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 93. Thursday, 8 Nov 1990. Date: Thu, 8 Nov 90 09:06:38 EST From: FLANNAGA@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca Subject: [Folger Bibliographer Wanted?] From the rare book list, EXLIBRIS, I learned that a position is open at the Folger Library for a bibliographer to describe and catalogue the 79 First Folios. Does anyone else know anything more about the position? It is, apparently, just a one-year appointment. Roy Flannagan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 90 14:13:16 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0093 Folger Bibliographer Wanted? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 93. Thursday, 8 Nov 1990. Date: Thu, 8 Nov 90 09:06:38 EST From: FLANNAGA@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca Subject: [Folger Bibliographer Wanted?] From the rare book list, EXLIBRIS, I learned that a position is open at the Folger Library for a bibliographer to describe and catalogue the 79 First Folios. Does anyone else know anything more about the position? It is, apparently, just a one-year appointment. Roy Flannagan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Nov 90 09:08:21 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0094 Member Biographies, Volume 2 (73) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 94. Friday, 9 Nov 1990. Date: Fri, 09 Nov 90 08:44:59 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Volume 2 of SHAKSPER Member Biographies Fellow SHAKSPEReans; (Incidentally, my apologies for the duplicated mailing yesterday; that was the first time such an error has occurred on SHAKSPER, but it may not be the last. I won't bore you with the technical excuses...) Today I have closed volume two of the SHAKSPER Member Biographies (named SHAKS-00 BIOGRAFY, for reasons best explained by the programmer of the retrieval software). The file is now complete and available to members on the SHAKSPER Fileserver. Any subsequent biographies will be added to volume three, SHAKS-01 BIOGRAFY. (The first, incidentally, was named simply SHAKSPER BIOGRAFY.) Because incoming biographies have been appended to these files on a daily basis, most of you did not receive a finalized version of the first volume, and none of you have received the complete version of volume two. Furthermore, because the New Member Package is already quite large, none of you received the BIOGRAFY software automatically. I suggest that interested members simply request BIOGRAFY PACKAGE SHAKSPER from Listserv, which will include the following files: Member Biography File(s) and Retrieval Program: ------------------------------------------------------------------- BIOGRAFY PACKAGE Order this file to receive the package 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 (in progress) BIOGRAFY EXEC A CMS retrieval program for the SHAKSPER biography files, by Jim Coombs BIOGRAFY HELPCMS A help file for the CMS biography program I will not be sending this package to all members, as this would place an unforgivable strain on the network, but you are welcome to request it individually. Ken Steele University of Toronto ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fileserver Procedures (A Reminder): SHAKSPEReans can retrieve files or logbooks from the SHAKSPER Fileserver by issuing the interactive command, "TELL LISTSERV AT UTORONTO GET fname ftype SHAKSPER". If your network link does not support the interactive "TELL" command, or if Listserv rejects your request, then send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@utoronto, reading "GET fname ftype SHAKSPER". For a complete list of files available, send the command "GET SHAKSPER FILES SHAKSPER" to obtain an annotated index. (Note that the "INDEX SHAKSPER" and "GET FILELIST SHAKSPER" commands will result in an *un*annotated list generated automatically by Listserv. These lists include size information, but are less legible to human eyes.) For further information, consult the appropriate section of your SHAKSPER GUIDE, or contact the editor, or . ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Nov 90 17:24:57 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0095 Shakespeare Spinoffs? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 95. Monday, 12 Nov 1990. Date: Mon, 12 Nov 90 17:17:50 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Poetry inspired by Shakespeare Dear Fellow SHAKSPEReans; It occurred to me today to wonder whether anyone has ever compiled an anthology or bibliography of poems, plays, short stories, etc. inspired by Shakespeare and/or his works. I'm thinking of canonical literary works, like Keats' "On Sitting Down to Read *King Lear* Again" or Stoppard's "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead," but of course such uncanonical doggerel as the poems by "Guillaume Chequespierre" I posted some months back might also be interesting. Just curious. Any ideas? Ken Steele University of Toronto or ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 90 09:27:57 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0096 Shakespeare Spinoffs (97) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 96. Tuesday, 13 Nov 1990. (1) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 90 19:30:37 EST (27 lines) From: leosborn@COLBY.EDU (Laurie E. Osborne) Subject: Inspired by Shakespeare (2) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 90 22:33:00 EST (53 lines) From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: Anthology of Shakespearean Humor (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 90 19:30:37 EST From: leosborn@COLBY.EDU (Laurie E. Osborne) Subject: Inspired by Shakespeare I'm afraid what I have to offer as works inspired by Shakespeare are not part of anyone's literary elite. Actually, _Shakespeare's Dog_, by Leon Rooke is not bad. The other two novels, both of which include Shakespeare as a character and refer to _The Merchant of Venice_, are potboilers pure and simple. The first is Erica Jong's _Serenissima_, in which our heroine timetravels in order to use her distinctive brand of prose to describe sex with the bard in the Jewish Ghetto of Venice. The second manages to bring in sex with Queen Elizabeth and well as with Shakespeare. It is called, predictably, _The Quality of Mercy_, by Faye Kellerman. I wrote a piece on the first two novels (Rooke and Jong) for an SAA seminar a couple of years back. I'd be glad to send it along if anyone is interested. I even went so far as to attend an "author's" luncheon in order to ask Ms. Jong why she chose to have Shakespeare appear in her work. I describe the interview, such as it was, in the paper. I plan at some point to expand the essay to include the Kellerman novel, mostly because I am fascinated by the fact that both Jong and Kellerman chose, principally, *Merchant*. Laurie E. Osborne leosborn@colby.edu (2) --------------------------------------------------------------79---- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 90 22:33:00 EST From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: Anthology of Shakespearean Humor In response to Ken's query, let me offer Marilyn Schoenbaum's *A Shakespeare Merriment: An Anthology of Shakespearean Humor*, Garland, 1988. This delightful collection ranges from John Manningham anecdote about "William the Conqueror" to Woody Allen's "But Soft . . . Real Soft" from *Without Feathers*. There are twenty-four selections and a *New Yorker* cartoon by Bernard Schoenbaum (Sam's brother). My two favorites are James Thurber's "The Macbeth Murder Mystery" and Isaac Asimov's "The Immortal Bard." For your enjoyment, here is the selection from Robert Manson Myers's *From Beowulf to Virginia Woolf*: William Shakespeare was the greatest dramatist the world has yet to produce. He came of a very respectable family and was, through no fault of his own, born poor but honest on a hot and paltry day in 1564, presumably on his birthday, near Suffix, England, while his parents were travailing abroad. In extreme youth, having already marred Anne Hatchaway, the Merry Widow, he settled at Windsor with his eight merry wives, where he remained until 1611, when he removed to Stratford-on-Auburn, more commonly known as the Deserted Village. Shakespeare never made much money, and he is remembered today chiefly for his plays, most of which have, unfortunately, been dramatized. In early manhood he wrote *Love's Labour's Lust*, to be followed shortly by *As You Lack It* (a high comedy, featuring the villainous Skylark), and *Anatomy and Coleoptera* (a comedy of errors): Age cannot wither nor costume stale Her indefinite virginity. In later manhood he wrote *Othello* (the first domestic tragedy), *King Lear* (the last domestic tragedy), and *Hamlet* (a tragedy of errors). Shakespeare betrayed women brilliantly: he created female characters with a stroke of his pen, and it is impossible to find a Hamlet among them. Although he was a dramatist of vast proportions, he sometimes also wrote poetry: *The Rape of Lucretius* was inspired by the works of Seneca, a Roman prefix under Emperor Trojan. Shakespeare wrote almost exclusively in blank verse (unrhymed ironic pentameter); and his plays often present a fool -- sometimes Shakespeare himself. Hardy Cook HMCOOK@BOE.TOWSON.EDU PS: There's also a selection from *Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead*. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 90 22:13:56 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0099 Shakespearean Spinoffs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 97. Wednesday, 14 Nov 1990. (1) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 90 15:42:00 EST (10 lines) From: Charles Neuringer Subject: [Stoppard's Shakespeare] (2) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 90 20:47:22 EST (12 lines) From: CSHUNTER@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca, at@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca, Subject: [Shakespeare's Dog] (3) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 90 13:38:24 EST (18 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Shakespearean Influences (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 90 15:42:00 EST From: Charles Neuringer Subject: [Stoppard's Shakespeare] RE: SHAKSPEARE SPINOFFS Somebody has already mentioned Tom Stoppard's R & S ARE DEAD. He also wrote two other plays that refer back to Shakespeare. They are DOGG'S HAMLET and CAHOOT'S MACBETH. (2) --------------------------------------------------------------37---- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 90 20:47:22 EST From: CSHUNTER@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca, at@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca, Subject: [Shakespeare's Dog] How many of us has read <>? My students find it a total lark, particularly because the author reads the text so well. C. S. Hunter, Graduate Co-ordinator, English Dept., University of Guelph (3) --------------------------------------------------------------22---- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 90 13:38:24 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Shakespearean Influences I'd like to add somewhat to the scope of my previous question: I am interested in compiling a list of the more "important" (well-known, canonical, interesting, humorous, or simply literary masterpieces) works which refer back to Shakespeare in a significant way. I am thinking of T.S. Eliot's "Marina" or W.H. Auden's "The Sea and the Mirror," for instance. It's amazing how many of these I have been unaware of until now! My thanks for the responses thus far; I look forward to more of the same. Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 90 22:15:00 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0098 Growing Up and Growing Old in Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 98. Wednesday, 14 Nov 1990. Date: Tue, 13 Nov 90 15:07:46 EST From: GA0708@SIUCVMB Subject: Growing Up and Growing Old in Shakespeare For the last half dozen years I have been interesting myself in the subject of aging as it is treated in literature. As a Shakespearean, I have, naturally, spent a fair amount of time in examining his texts as grist for my gerontological mill. About two or three years ago, someone offered a seminar at the Folger on "Growing Up and Growing Old in Shakespeare." I no longer have the program so I don't know who it was that organized that session. I have two requests. Does anyone know who gave that seminar? And secondly, since I am planning to give a seminar in a similar vein in the spring, does anyone know any good books or articles on the subject of growing up in Shakespeare? Although I have a fairly large bibliography on growing old in Shakespeare, any suggested titles (particularly of very recent vintage) on that topic would also be quite welcome. Herbert Donow Southern Illinois University at Carbondale ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 08:42:08 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0100 [was 1.100] Shakespearean Spinoffs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 100. Thursday, 15 Nov 1990. (1) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 90 23:52:03 EST (9 lines) From: James O'Donnell Subject: SHK 1.0099 Shakespearean Spinoffs (2) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 90 10:59 EST (73 lines) From: Subject: Shakespeare knock-offs (3) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 90 12:56:06 EST (28 lines) From: Lawrence Schimel Subject: Anthology of works with Shakespeare (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 90 23:52:03 EST From: James O'Donnell Subject: SHK 1.0099 Shakespearean Spinoffs Let us not forget Barbara Garson, *Macbird*, the wicked satire on LBJ that appeared in 1966. Perhaps more at this point for nostalgia buffs than Shakespeareans, but some of us will fall in both categories. It was published by Grove Press in the age when that was a cachet of outrageousness. (2) --------------------------------------------------------------77---- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 90 10:59 EST From: Subject: Shakespeare knock-offs Among Shakespearean spinoffs, borrowings, etc., I have to list Tom Stoppard's two complementary one-act plays, *Dogg's Hamlet, Cahoot's Macbeth*, as particular favorites. The latter, a "closet" production of *Macbeth* in a totalitarian country also brings to mind a scene in Leslie Epstein's novel, *King of the Jews*, in which is chillingly depicted a production of *Macbeth* in a concentration camp. *Dogg's Hamlet*, concludes with a fifteen minute *Hamlet* (which certainly bests Maurice Evans' GI Hamlet of WWII) which I have found not only fascinating in itself but also very useful in teaching how we read. The fifteen minute version consists of three parts. The first is a prologue (spoken by "Shakespeare") which goes as follows: For this relief, much thanks. Though I am native here, and to the manner born, It is a custom more honoured in the breach Than in the observance Well. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. To be, or not to be, that is the question. There are more things in heaven and earth Than are dreamt of in your philosophy-- There's a divinity that shapes our ends, Rough hew them how we will Though this be madness, yet there is method in it. I must be cruel only to be kind; Hold, as t'were, the mirror up to nature. A countenance more in sorrow than in anger. (LADY in the audience shouts 'Marmalade'.) The lady doth protest too much. Cat will mew, and Dogg will have his day! Then proceeds the body of the play, with the lines of the Prologue appearing again, this time in context. The whole play is, of course, a further reduction of the original, which the reader or viewer understands according to his or her knowledge of, familiarity with, or recollection of the original. Indeed, the play calls for a (re-)constructive reading. (This epistemological theme has been in large measure the concern of the play up to the fifteen minute Hamlet.) The third part is an Encore in which the play is reprised in shorter form, which is effective and understandable in relation to our understanding of the "fifteen minute" version, which is understandable in relation to our knowledge, familiarity, recollection, etc., etc. I find it useful to have students read the Stoppard before reading Shakespeare's *Hamlet* and again. It helps illustrate the way our own experiences and knowledge enter into any of our reading. This, I know, is getting interminably long, but let me add one more thing--a recollection of my own from over twenty-five years back. A floating theater called The Showboat, specializing in "mellerdramas," (It still exists, I believe; at least it did seven or eight years ago) moored in St. Louis, on the Mississippi, presented *Hamlet and Yeggs*, a comedy about a bunch of convicts who planned an prison break using a production of *Hamlet* as cover--the old play within a play trick. My memory is vague, but I do recall that Claudius, having pronounced Hamlet crazy in the head, decided to send him to England for his "weak end." (3) --------------------------------------------------------------50---- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 90 12:56:06 EST From: Lawrence Schimel Subject: Anthology of works with Shakespeare How strange to see interest in this subject which I had just begun to look into myself. While researching for my project in adapting Shakespeare's Sonnet sequence to dramatic form I came across two earlier attempts, one by Shaw entitled *The Dark Lady of the Sonnets* which includes Shakespeare as a character, and the other a piece entitled *Shakespeare and his Lover* by Frank Harris. I have been unable to locate the Harris piece, but the Shaw is usually found in any of his collected works. The Harris piece was copyright in 1910 so there should be a Library of Congress version of it, if nothing else. However, besides these two plays we have recently been getting poems about Shakespeare or his plays read to us in lecture which made me begin to wonder if there was an anthology like the one under discussion in existance. Thoughts of a possible paper on the bard in other people's works, as well as other people who rewrite the bard's works (Shaw being the first to come to mind). (Ken - This might be related to your project, if only incidentally.) I think it is a worthwhile project and one worth pursuing. Ken, you proposed this but if no one else wishes to take the initiative.... I'd be willing to compile a list of any such I find independently and those that other people bring to my attention. It might be an easier way, than to overload the system, but again in the interest of a free conference we might wish to do so. Well, it leaves us with much to think about. A further update later. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 14:49:59 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0101 More Shakespearean Spinoffs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 101. Thursday, 15 Nov 1990. (1) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 10:57:00 EST (14 lines) From: Subject: less canonical spinoffs (2) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 10:01:57 EST (24 lines) From: matsuba@writer.uucp Subject: Re: SHK 1.100 Shakespearean Spinoffs (3) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 13:30:51 EST (16 lines) From: GA0708@SIUCVMB Subject: Shakespeare spin-offs (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 10:57:00 EST From: Subject: less canonical spinoffs Science fiction and fantasy have their Shakespearian spinoffs also, one of which is _Shakespeare's World_, whose author I cannot recall at the moment, and another of which is the classic SF film, _Forbidden Planet_, loosely based on _The Tempest_. Judy Boss University of Nebraska at Omaha BITNET: eng003@unoma1 (2) --------------------------------------------------------------39---- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 10:01:57 EST From: matsuba@writer.uucp Subject: Re: SHK 1.100 Shakespearean Spinoffs I would add two short one-act plays to the list--both by Shaw. One is *The Macbeth Skit*, and the other is *Cymbelene Refinished*. There is also Shaw's puppet play *Shakes Versus Shav*. A more in direct spinoff is Shaw's *Heartbreak House*. Although the play has a reference to *Othello*, *Shakes Versus Shav* draws a direct line between Shaw's work and *King Lear*: SHAKES Where is thy Hamlet? Couldst thou write King Lear? SHAV Aye, with his daughters all complete. Couldst thou Have written Heartbreak House? Behold my Lear. Of course, this raises the question of whether we have adaptation, an allusion, or a source. One could argue, I think, that adaptation and sources are related. Stephen Matsuba York University (3) --------------------------------------------------------------37---- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 13:30:51 EST From: GA0708@SIUCVMB Subject: Shakespeare spin-offs This isn't exactly a spin-off, but there is a novel that makes considerable use of the sonnets while ingeniously explaining everything about the author of the sonnets, the fair youth, the dark lady, etc. It is Cothburn O'Neal's "The Dark Lady" (New York: Crown, 1954) wherein the central character, Rosaline, is the genius behind Shakespeare. She is one of his "boy" actors and is having a love affair with Southampton. The sonnets are a record of this relationship. Herb Donow Southern Illinois Univ. at Carbondale ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Nov 90 13:37:27 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0102 Shakespearean Spinoffs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 102. Friday, 16 Nov 1990. (1) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 16:05:00 EST (8 lines) From: [Norman Miller] NMILLER@vax1.trincoll.edu Subject: Re: SHK 1.0101 More Shakespearean Spinoffs (2) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 23:24:19 EST (40 lines) From: Lawrence Schimel Subject: Re: Recording Spinoffs (3) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 90 13:24:47 EST (23 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Spinoff Bibliography for Fileserver (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 16:05:00 EST From: [Norman Miller] NMILLER@vax1.trincoll.edu Subject: Re: SHK 1.0101 More Shakespearean Spinoffs Has Edmund Wilson's "The Duke of Palermo" been mentioned yet? Not worth the reading as I recall except as a pretty obvious self-portrait (with many masks) of that sour paranoid misanthropic fascinating man. (2) --------------------------------------------------------------61---- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 23:24:19 EST From: Lawrence Schimel Subject: Re: Recording Spinoffs I'm glad the field of Science Fiction and Fantasy was mentioned in an earlier posting because there are a number of spinoffs that have not yet been mentioned in those genres. Most of these deal with material from *A Midsummer Night's Dream* and/or the Tempest. So far, the ones I have located are L. Sprague De Camp and Fletcher Pratt's *The Land of Unreason*, Poul Anderson's *A Midsummer Night's Tempest*, and the horror novel by Raymond Feist, *Fairy Tale*, which uses characters from both of the aforementioned plays. Another novel dealing with Shakespeare is *Her Majesty's Wizard* by Christopher Stasheff, in which all the spells are actually quotes from Shakespeare. Aside from these novels there is the short story by Isaac Asimov entitled "The Immortal Bard," in which a monkey (re)writes Shakespeare. I still haven't managed to locate where the story was printed, but it will no doubt be in the new series of Asimov's complete collected works being published now. In more canonical or classically "literary" venues is the play *Bingo* by Edward Bond which deals with Shakespeare's declining years. There is a sequel to *The Taming of the Shrew* written by John Fletcher (Thatcher?-Alas, I can't read my notes.) entitled *The Woman's Cries or The Tamer Tamed*. I have a date in the margin (1604-1617) but am no longer sure what it means. Sorry I don't have many specifics about this reference. There are also two poems for which I have incomplete information. One is "Shylock" by Fiona ? ?, I believe she's a British writer and saw her name again in the current *Poetry Review* today but forgot to write it down. The other is "Exit, Pursued by a Bear" by an author whose name I've completely forgotten. In addition there was a student production put on last year, here at Yale, entitled *Hamletmachine*, which I don't have any more information on. Unfortunately, most of my (re)sources shut down over the break so I may be delayed in finding this missing information. Lawrence Schimel Yale University SCHLAWD@YALEVM (3) --------------------------------------------------------------28---- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 90 13:24:47 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Spinoff Bibliography for Fileserver Fellow SHAKSPEReans; It is reassuring to see a discussion like that of "Spinoffs" taking off as it has, and I hope it will flourish for some time yet (so do keep sending your ideas -- some of the descriptions are fascinating!). Lawrence Schimel of Yale University has generously offered to begin compiling and revising a bibliography of the poems, novels, films, (etc.) which members report, for permanent inclusion on the SHAKSPER Fileserver. The first version will be announced when it becomes available. And please bear in mind that any additional topics for discussion are welcome and can flourish simultaneously; the digest format of SHAKSPER is designed to permit any number of parallel conversations. Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Nov 90 08:59:40 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0103 Spinoffs, Hamletmachine Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 103. Saturday, 17 Nov 1990. (1) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 90 15:58:04 EST (52 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Hamletmachine, Woman's Prize, Spinoffs (2) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 90 18:59:06 EST (13 lines) From: JW_GOODRICH@UNHH.UNH.EDU Subject: Spinoffs... (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 90 15:58:04 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Hamletmachine, Woman's Prize, Spinoffs The play in Lawrence Schimel's illegible notes must be John Fletcher's (1579-1625) *The Woman's Prize; or, The Tamer Tamed*, which has been published in a critical edition by George B. Ferguson (The Hague: Mouton, 1966). Lawrence Schimel also mentions a student production of *Hamletmachine* at Yale. This was probably a version of Heiner Mu"ller's (that's an umlaut) *Die Hamletmaschine*, which was performed here in Toronto by the Quebec company Carbone 14 in June 1988. Fortunately, I did see it and I do save *everything*, so I can supply additional information both from the programme, and from the University of Toronto's on-line FELIX library catalogue. Heiner Mu"ller (1929 - ) is proclaimed "postwar Germany's most important playwright." The text is reprinted in *Hamletmachine and Other Texts for the Stage*, (New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications, 1984). Incidentally, another title by Mu"ller which sounds relevant to the "Spinoffs" discussion is *Shakespeare Factory* (Berlin: Rotbuch Verlag, 1985). Both seem to be readily available. The Quebec production, directed by Gilles Maheu (star of the Canadian film *Un Zoo La Nuit*), claimed to "deconstruct [Mu"ller's] own deconstruction of Europe, history, and Shakespeare's *Hamlet* to produce a mind-boggling succession of striking images [...] using video, rock music, four Hamlets, four Ophelias as well as fragments of English, French, and German" (not to mention puppets, live rats, etc.): Like the hemispheres of the brain, the stage of *Hamlet- Machine* is split in two: a symbol of East-German author Heiner Mu"ller's divided homeland. [The brochure is already a little dated! This description seems more appropriate to contemporary Canada than Germany.] Carbone 14's wall, however, contains live rats, an Orwellian suggestion of the ruins of Europe. Mu"ller has taken Shakespeare's play and scattered its parts in all directions, making Hamlet's burden the nightmare of history. Mu"ller's Hamlet begins: "I was Hamlet. I stood at the shore and talked with the surf BLABLA." This gives some idea of the play as I saw it, although what they did with it at Yale I don't know. Ken Steele University of Toronto (2) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 90 18:59:06 EST From: JW_GOODRICH@UNHH.UNH.EDU Subject: Spinoffs... Despite the reputation of comics being immature, there was an excellent presentation of Shakespeare in a recent issue of "The Sandman" By Jamie Delano. I believe it was issue #23 or so, titled _A Midsummer Night's Dream_. It was a very interesting portrayal of Shakespeare as actor, director, and father (yes, Hamnet was involved). I recommend it highly to anyone who doesn't mind being caught reading a (gasp) comic book. John Goodrich ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Nov 90 00:13:22 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0104 Shakespearean Spinoffs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 104. Sunday, 18 Nov 1990. (1) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 90 03:38:25 EST (12 lines) From: Lawrence Schimel Subject: Shakespeare Spinoffs (2) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 90 23:01:36 EST (10 lines) From: Lawrence Schimel Subject: Rest of Name (3) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 90 13:59:00 EST (82 lines) From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: Shakespeare Spinoffs -- Films (4) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 90 13:59:00 EST (98 lines) From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: Shakespeare Spinoffs -- Literary (5) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 90 00:03:13 EST (21 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Spinoffs (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 17 Nov 90 03:38:25 EST From: Lawrence Schimel Subject: Shakespeare Spinoffs While I'm remembering this and have access to a terminal I'd like to mention Sir John Gielgud's performance piece *The Ages of Man*, based on the book/anthology of the same title arranged by George Rylands. Both pieces are constructed out of lines drawn from entire body of Shakespeare's work. So in a way, it is not truly a spinoff, as it actually is Shakespeare. But it does in my opinion count as one because of the way they are arranged. (2) --------------------------------------------------------------34---- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 90 23:01:36 EST From: Lawrence Schimel Subject: Rest of Name This is just a short note saying I found the poet's name who wrote "Shylock." It is Fiona Pitt-Kethly. I thought it was very well done. If you can find it, I don't know where it was first published or if it is collected. I received it as a photocopy of someone's retyped version. (3) --------------------------------------------------------------106--- Date: Sat, 17 Nov 90 13:59:00 EST From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: Shakespeare Spinoffs -- Films I have a few more offerings for the ongoing discussion of Shakespearean spinoffs. *The Folger Shakespeare Filmography* has a section on Feature Length Adaptations or Derivatives and Dance Musical, or Operatic Versions, to which I have added a few titles. Feature Length Adaptations or Derivatives : HAMLET: Ernst Lubitsch's 1942 *To Be or Not to Be* Helmut Kautner's 1960 *The Rest Is Silence* Akira Kurosawa's 1963 *The Bad Sleep Well* Claude Chabrol's 1963 *Ophelia* [Mel Brook's 1983 remake of *To Be or Not to Be*] HENRY VI: John Adolfi's 1929 *Show of Shows* JULIUS CAESAR: Geofrey Grayson's 1960 *An Honourable Murder* JULIUS CAESAR, ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA: Gerald Thomas's 1964 *Carry on Cleo* KING LEAR: Edward Dmytryk's 1954 *Broken Lance* Joseph Mankiewicz's 1949 *House of Strangers* James Clark's 1961 *The Big Show* MACBETH: Ken Hughes's 1955 *Joe Macbeth* Akira Kurosawa's 1957 *Throne of Blood* OTHELLO: Walter Reish's 1937 *Man Are Not Gods* George Cukor's 1947 *A Double Life* Camillo Mastrocinque's 1953 *Anna's Sin* Delmar Davis's 1956 *Jubal* Basil Dearden's 1962 *All Night Long* MERRY WIVES, HENRY IV, HENRY V: Orson Welles's 1966 *Falstaff: Chimes at Midnight* RICHARD III: Rowland Lee's 1939 *Tower of London* Roger Corman's 1962 *Tower of London* ROMEO AND JULIET: Lionel Barrymore's "Romeo and Juliet" Sequence from the 1929 *The Hollywood Review* Miguel Delgado's 1944 *Romeo and Juliet* Gerald Thomas's 1959 *Carry on Teacher* Jiri Weiss's 1960 *Sweet Light in a Dark Room* Peter Ustinov's 1961 *Romanoff and Juliet* George Sherman's 1964 *Panic Button* A. P. Stootsberry's 1969 *The Secret Sex Lives of Romeo and Juliet* THE TEMPEST: Fred Wilcox's 1956 *Forbidden Planet* Philip Dunne's 1955 *Prince of Players* [Paul Mazursky's 1982 *Tempest*] Dance Musical, or Operatic Versions: Edward Sutherland's 1940 *The Boys from Syracuse* Georg Wildhagen's 1952 *The Merry Wives of Windsor* George Tressler's 1965 *The Merry Wives of Windsor* Dan Eriksen's 1967 *A Midsummer Night's Dream* Walter Strate's 1950 *Othello* Patrick McGoohan's 1973 *Catch My Soul* Lev Arnshtam's and Leonid Lavrovsky's 1954 *The Ballet of Romeo and Juliet* Robert Wise's and Jerome Robbins's 1961 *West Side Story* Rovira-Beleta's 1964 *Los Tarantos* Paul Czinner's 1966 *Romeo and Juliet* George Sidney's 1953 *Kiss Me Kate* Hardy Cook HMCOOK@BOE.TOWSON.EDU (4) --------------------------------------------------------------122--- Date: Sat, 17 Nov 90 13:59:00 EST From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: Shakespeare Spinoffs -- Literary Lawrence Schimel in his recent posting writes, "there is the short story by Isaac Asimov entitled "The Immortal Bard," in which a monkey (re)writes Shakespeare. I still haven't managed to locate where the story was printed, but it will no doubt be in the new series of Asimov's complete collected works being published now." Actually, "The Immortal Bard" from *Earth Is Room Enough* is about two professors at a Christmas cocktail party. A physics professor announces to a young English instructor that he can "bring back the spirits of the illustrious dead." The English instructor bites and is told that the physics professor has already brought back Shakespeare. Dr. Welsh, the physics professor, explains that after informing Shakespeare that "people had written volumes of commentaries on his plays," the stunned playwright also learns that "we even gave college courses in Shakespeare." The English instructor, Scott Robertson, announces, "I give one." To which, Dr. Welsh responds, "I know. I enrolled him in your evening extension course. I never saw a man so eager to find out what posterity thought of him as poor Bill was. He worked hard at it." This is how the story ends: "You enrolled William Shakespeare in my course?" mumbled Robertson. Even as an alcoholic fantasy, the thought staggered him. And WAS it an alcoholic fantasy? He was beginning to recall a bald man with a queer way of talking . . . . "Not under his real name, of course," said Dr. Welsh. "Never mind what he went under. It was a mistake, that's all. A big mistake. Poor fellow." He had the cocktail now and shook his head at it. "Why was it a mistake? What happened?" "I had to send him back to 1600," roared Welsh indignantly. "How much humiliation do you think a man can stand?" "What humiliation are you talking about?" "Dr. Welsh tossed off the cocktail. "Why, you poor simpleton, you FLUNKED him." As I mentioned in my earlier posting on the subject, this short story is included in Marilyn Schoenbaum's *A Shakespeare Merriment.* Here is a list of the other entries in this collection: John Manningham "William the Conqueror Anecdote" Samuel Johnson "Shakespeare as Horseholder" Henry Fielding from *Tom Jones* Oliver Goldsmith "A Reverie at the Boar's-Head-Tavern in Eastcheap" Washington Irvin "Stratford-on-Avon," from *The Sketch Book* Mark Twain "An Arkansaw Difficulty," from *The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn* Charles Dickens from *Great Expectations* Oscar Wilde "The Portrait of Mr. W. H." Rudyard Kipling "Proofs of Holy Writ" George Bernard Shaw "The Dark Lady of the Sonnets" Maurice Baring "Lady Macbeth's Trouble," from *Unreliable History* Richard Armour "Shakespeare's Life," from *Twisted Tales from Shakespeare* Robert Manson Myers from *Beowulf to Virginia Woolf* Caryl Brahms and S. J. Simon "The Naming of the Globe," from *No Bed for Bacon* Leonard Q. Ross (Leo Rosten) "Mr. K*A*P*L*A*N and Shakespeare," from *The Education of H*Y*M*A*N K*A*P*L*A*N* James Thurber "The Macbeth Murder Myster," from *My World -- And Welcome to It* Wolcott Gibbs "Ring Out, Wild Bells," from *Bed of Neuroses* Richard Curtis "The Skinhead Hamlet," from *Not 1982* Isaac Asimov "The Immortal Bard," from *Earth Is Room Enough* Banesh Hoffman "Shakespeare the Physcist" Don Marquis "pete the parrot and shakespeare," from *archy and mehitabel* James Joyce from *Ulysses* Tom Stoppard from *Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead* Woody Allen "But Soft . . . Real Soft," from *Without Feathers* It also occurs to me that on the literary front no one has as yet mentioned Tennyson's "Mariana" or Browning's "Caliban upon Setebos." Of course, there are also Veridi's operas *Macbeth*, *Otello*, and *Falstaff*. Hardy Cook HMCOOK@BOE.TOWSON.EDU (5) --------------------------------------------------------------21---- Date: Sun, 18 Nov 90 00:03:13 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Spinoffs (Incidentally, the more often I see the word "spinoff" the more I wish there were another term...) My bookshelf yields a few other titles for our project: John Hulme, "ed." *Guillaume Chequespierre and the Oise Salon*. (New York: Harper & Row, 1985). Amusing French "translations" of famous passages from Shakespeare. (I transcribed the funniest of these in SHAKSPER 1.0060, Monday 17 Sep 1990). Richard Armour, *Twisted Tales from Shakespeare*. 1957. rpt Signet 1966. Anthony Burgess, *Nothing Like the Sun: A Story of Shakespeare's Love-Life*. (1964. rpt. Hamlyn 1982). ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Nov 90 20:47:00 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0105 Shakespearean Spinoffs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 105. Sunday, 18 Nov 1990. (1) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 90 18:01:28 EST (14 lines) From: Lawrence Schimel Subject: Spinoffs from MND (2) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 90 13:54:00 EST (19 lines) From: Charles Neuringer Subject: SHAKSPEARE SPINOFFS (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 18 Nov 90 18:01:28 EST From: Lawrence Schimel Subject: Spinoffs from MND Anthony Burgess has written an opera, entitled *Oberon: a fantastic opera*. I believe this is a reworking of the opera, *Oberon: a romantic and fairy opera* by J(ames) R(obinson) Planch'e. The music for both pieces was by Carl Maria von Weber. They were both published in a book, credited to Burgess, and published by Hutchinson in 1985. In the front was a facsimile of the theatre billing which introduced the play as an opera based on *Wieland's* poem *Oberon; or, the elf-kings oath*. It was produced at the Theatre Royal, Covent Gardens and opened on Wednesday, 12 April 1826. (2) --------------------------------------------------------------25---- Date: Sun, 18 Nov 90 13:54:00 EST From: Charles Neuringer Subject: SHAKSPEARE SPINOFFS More spinoffs. Nobody so far has mentioned spinoffs in the mystery story. There are a fair number of mystery novels whose titles come from Shakespeare (e.g., Heyer's ENVIOUS CASCA, or Crispin's THE LONG FAREWELL). Stretching my memory, there are a few mystery novels which deal with the plays in a very direct way. Michael Innis' HAMLET, REVENGE deals with a murder that occurs during a performance of HAMLET. Ngaio Marsh's DEATH AT THE DOLPHIN and LIGHT THICKENS are also Shakespeare-oriented. LIGHT THICKENS is of particular interest, because the murder takes place during a performance of MACBETH, and the reader has to know the play's stage directions to figure out whodunit. I would be interested in hearing about other mysteries that use Shakespeare as a spinoff. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Nov 90 12:43:18 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0106 Directory of Shakespearean Institutes Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 106. Monday, 19 Nov 1990. Date: Mon, 19 Nov 90 12:41:01 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: SHAKSPER Directory of Shakespearean Institutes Dear Fellow SHAKSPEReans; In keeping with SHAKSPER's mandate to offer every electronic resource possible to its members, I would like to begin compiling a directory (or several directories) of organizations, institutes, libraries, and journals dedicated entirely or primarily to Shakespearean scholarship. These directories will be stored on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, regularly updated, and available to all members. I am particularly interested in organizations with Bitnet links, but will eventually be approaching those which do not to encourage participation in SHAKSPER as well. Only the eight Shakespearean institutions below are listed among the Renaissance institutes in the Directory issued by the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies here at the University of Toronto. Some of the CRRS information was outdated, and I suspect that many smaller and/or newer Shakespearean institutes (like that at CUNY directed by Steven Urkowitz) have inevitably been overlooked: 1. Deutsche Shakespeare-Gesellschaft West Rathaus, D-4360 Bochum, West Germany 2. Folger Institute Folger Shakespeare Library, 201 East Capitol Street S.E., Washington, DC 20003, USA 3. International Shakespeare Association c/o The Shakespeare Centre, Henley Street, Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire CV37 6QW, England 4. Pennsylvania Renaissance Seminar c/o Dr. Georgianna Ziegler, Special Collections, Van Pelt Library, University of Pennsylvania, 3420 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206, USA 5. Shakespeare Association of America Department of English, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275 6. Shakespeare Centre Henley Street, Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire CV37 6QW, England 7. Shakespeare Institute Westmere, 50 Edgbaston Park Road, Birmingham B15 2RX, England (or) Mason Croft, Church Street, Stratford-upon-Avon CV37, England 8. West Virginia Shakespeare and Renaissance Association c/o Sophia B. Blaydes, Department of English, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA If any SHAKSPEReans are aware of corrections to the information above, or additional organizations, institutes, or journals which could be included in such a directory, please send a note with as much or as little of the following information as you have: Institute / Organization / Journal / Library Name: University / Library / College Affiliation: Surface Mail Address: Telephone and Area Code: Current Presiding Officers: Bitnet Address or Contact: Date Founded: Aims or Purposes: Membership (Number, Procedures): Publications: Courses / Seminars Offered: Activities: Scholarships: Library: Hours of Operation: Annual Closure?: By Appointment Only?: (If you can suggest any additional categories of information which might be useful, please let me know.) I hope that your responses will be as overwhelming as those to my "Spinoffs" query, which continue to arrive (and which are encouraged to persist despite this additional query). Unless responses to this questions are particularly amusing, or generate further queries, however, I will not burden the conference as a whole with them, but will compile the list silently and post it to the Fileserver when complete. Please note also that I do not have much of the above information for the eight organizations listed above either; information on those would also be welcome. Thank-you in advance for your assistance. Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Nov 90 12:47:48 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0107 Shakespearean Spinoffs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 107. Monday, 19 Nov 1990. (1) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 90 08:48:30 EST (19 lines) From: leosborn@COLBY.EDU (Laurie E. Osborne) Subject: Mystery Spinoff (2) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 90 10:23 EST (18 lines) From: Subject: Shakespearean spinoffs (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 90 08:48:30 EST From: leosborn@COLBY.EDU (Laurie E. Osborne) Subject: Mystery Spinoff There are a number of mysteries which take place in conjunction with Shakespearean productions. Linda Barnes has one called, predictably, _Blood will Have Blood_ which uses Macbeth. There is one of Martha Grimes's mysteries, the solution to which revolves around a production of _Othello_ in which the actor playing Othello murders the girl playing Desdemona; I'm not sure of the title but I'll check. I have been trying for some time to locate a mystery reviewed in the NYT Book Review in which the detective was named Hamnet Arden, a direct descendent of the Bard who solved the mystery, according to the reviewer, by referring to Renaissance plays. Ring any bells? Laurie Osborne leosborn@colby.edu (2) --------------------------------------------------------------22---- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 90 10:23 EST From: Subject: Shakespearean spinoffs No one has yet mentioned Anthony Burgess's *Nothing Like the Sun*, a fictional biography of WS, done up in Burgess's 20th century Renaissance prose. (It contains a particularly graphic description of the hanging, drawing, and quartering of Lopez, the Queen's physician.) And then there is another Burgess novel, *Enderby's Dark Lady*, the third of his Enderby novels, this one a sort of sci-fi, contemporary, historical melange. If memory serves me correctly, Burgess also published a scene from a projected musical based on the life of Shakespeare. It appeared, I believe, in *Esquire*, sometime in the early 70s(?) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Nov 90 15:30:27 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0108 Works in Progress Index on SHAKSPER Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 108. Monday, 19 Nov 1990. Date: Mon, 19 Nov 90 15:27:41 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: WORKS-IN PROGRESS Index on SHAKSPER Dear Fellow SHAKSPEReans; I am pleased to announce a new and innovative project which should ultimately prove invaluable to Shakespearean scholars: the SHAKSPER "WORKS-IN PROGRESS" Index. "WORKS-IN PROGRESS SHAKSPER" will be an annotated index of Shakespearean scholarly articles, books, papers, and dissertations currently in progress, in press, or recently published. So far as I know, such an index is available nowhere else, and I believe that the electronic medium in which we are swimming is *precisely* suited to conveying this sort of ever-changing ever- obsolescent information. The file will be stored on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, and updated frequently -- daily if necessary. Members will be able to retrieve the file at any time, and search electronically or manually for desired information by scholar, title, or by designated keywords. Entries will be alphabetical by scholar, and will probably take the form of this hypothetical example (which is supposed to be slightly amusing, and not indicative of the quality I hope to include): ----------------------------------------------------------------- SMITH, John M. (University of Erewhon) WORKS IN PROGRESS: (Untitled). A book-length study of female characters in Shakespeare's sonnets, with a strong predilection for the darker ladies. Computer analysis and quantum mechanics will play a large part in the study. ETA: 1993. (Keywords: SONNETS FEMINISM COMPUTER SCIENCE) "Whether 'tis Nobler in the Mind: The Study versus the Stage." (Tentative title). A conference paper defending the treatment of Shakespeare as poetry rather than drama. ETA: 1991. (Keywords: POETRY PERFORM- ANCE STUDY) *Hamlet*. (ed.) The Orangutan Shakespeare. New York: Orangutan Press, 1991. (Keywords: EDITION HAMLET) WORKS IN PRESS: *A Cumulative Index to Shakespeare's Mizpelings* [sic]. Atlantis: Utopian University Press, 1990. 5 vols. The definitive study of Shakespeare's (not the compositors'!) difficulties with orthography. (Has been in press for the past 15 years...) (Keywords: TEXT ORTHOGRAPHY REFERENCE) RECENTLY PUBLISHED: *A Parallel-Text Edition of Everything Shakespeare Wrote.* New York: Garland, 1989. [Don't get excited, this is fictional.] (Keywords: TEXT QUARTOS FOLIOS FACSIMILE) DISSERTATIONS IN SUPERVISION: Doe, John L. (Untitled). An analysis of the effect of Mother-Son relationships on Shakespearean protagonists. Ph.D. University of Erewhon. ETA: 1993. (Keywords: FAMILY FEMINISM CHARACTERS) Doe, Jane L. "Lady Macbeth's Mother: A study of the Mother-Daughter relationship in Shakespearean tragedy." (Tentative Title). M.A. University of Erewhon. ETA: 1991. (Keywords: FAMILY FEMINISM CHARACTERS TRAGEDY) ----------------------------------------------------------------- More specialized than the SHAKSPER Biography files, the WORKS-IN PROGRESS Index will offer specific information on current Shakespeare research projects and dissertations supervised by SHAKSPEReans (and perhaps their colleagues). Here there is no room for modesty; please include *everything* relevant to Shakespeare studies, whether you feel awkward "plugging" your new book or not. So far as I am concerned, "recent" can mean anything less than 10 years old. And please don't worry about giving others your closely-guarded research ideas; if anything, you will be reserving the subject for yourself, and warning off graduate students considering the topic for a thesis. You are also encouraged to send updated information as often as necessary. Obviously this Index will grow in usefulness as the membership in SHAKSPER grows (currently 87 worldwide), but its comprehen- siveness will be directly proportionate to your cooperation and assistance. Scholars will be asked to submit information in the format above before becoming members of SHAKSPER, but I must now plead that every dissertation supervisor and researcher already in this conference forward a similar list to me as soon as possible. Thank you in advance for the time and trouble this may cause you all; but bear in mind that your own efforts will be repaid almost a hundredfold (for the moment) and ultimately still more. Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Nov 90 21:15:49 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0109 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 109. Monday, 19 Nov 1990. Date: Mon, 19 Nov 90 21:08:27 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver Today three new files have been placed on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, and they are now available for retrieval by all members. SHAKSPER GUIDE has been entirely rewritten and reorganized, incorporating the numberous changes in SHAKSPER since its original conception, clarifying command instructions for Listserv, and outlining more clearly the areas in which members can contribute to the conference. SPINOFF BIBLIO is the first version of the bibliography of Shakespearean "spinoffs", being compiled by Lawrence Schimel of Yale University . Members are invited to submit corrections and additions to Lawrence Schimel or to SHAKSPER itself. A second version of this bibliography is in preparation, taking into account this month's discussion on SHAKSPER. CHARACTR BIBLIO is the first version of a bibliography of works in which Shakespeare figures as a character, also compiled by Lawrence Schimel. Corrections and additions are also most welcome. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fileserver Procedures: SHAKSPEReans can retrieve files or logbooks from the SHAKSPER Fileserver by issuing the interactive command, "TELL LISTSERV AT UTORONTO GET fname ftype SHAKSPER". If your network link does not support the interactive "TELL" command, or if Listserv rejects your request, then send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@utoronto, reading "GET fname ftype SHAKSPER". For a complete list of files available, send the command "GET SHAKSPER FILES SHAKSPER" to obtain an annotated index. (Note that the "INDEX SHAKSPER" and "GET FILELIST SHAKSPER" commands will result in an *un*annotated list generated automatically by Listserv. These lists include size information, but are less legible to human eyes.) For further information, consult the appropriate section of your SHAKSPER GUIDE, or contact the editor, or . ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Nov 90 10:20:27 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0110 New SHAKSPER Conference Directory Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 110. Tuesday, 20 Nov 1990. Date: Tue, 20 Nov 90 10:14:16 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: New SHAKSPER Conference Directory Dear Fellow SHAKSPEReans; Here is the first version of the SHAKSPER Conference Directory, a guide to upcoming Shakespearean and Renaissance scholarly meetings, seminars, and conferences and to calls for papers for the same. I have posted it today on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, and will update it regularly. Please contact me with any suggestions, corrections, or additions -- they will be most welcome. Yours, Ken Steele University of Toronto SHAKSPER Conference Directory November 20, 1990 This file is available in continually-updated form as CONFERNC DIRECTRY on the SHAKSPER Fileserver at UTORONTO. Its entries have been culled from a variety of sources, including *Shakespeare Association of America* Bulletins, *International Shakespeare Association* Mailings, *Shakespeare Quarterly*, *Shakespeare Bulletin*, the paper version of the *CRRS Newsletter*, and individual contributions by members of SHAKSPER. Corrections and additions are always welcomed by the editor, Ken Steele, at . CALLS FOR PAPERS: Pacific Northwest Renaissance Society. Fifteen minute (10 page) papers in all areas of Renaissance study. Include title and 250-300 word abstract. Final drafts to be submitted by December 14, 1990 for acceptance by January 31, 1991. Send papers and abstracts to Paul Budra, Department of English, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6. 14th International Conference on Elizabethan Theatre. To be held at the University of Waterloo, July 22-26, 1991. Short papers on "Women and the Elizabethan Theatre" are invited to supplement a programme of invited addresses. Papers concerned with Elizabethan and Jacobean drama apart from Shakespeare are particularly welcome. Submissions, not exceeding ten pages, should be sent by January 15, 1991 to Lynne Magnusson or Ted McGee, Department of English, University of Waterloo, Waterloo Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1. . Canadian Society for Renaissance Studies. Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, May 28-30, 1991. 20-minute papers on the following topics: Literary Translations, Drama and Society, Women Writers, Women and Power, Militant Literature, Latin in the Renaissance, Science and Natural Philosophy, or Open Topics. Submit abstracts or papers by January 15, 1991 to Professor Max Vernet, Department of French, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6. "Patronage of Artists, Writers, and Scientists." Pennsylvania Symposium on Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 5th Annual Meeting, University of Pittsburgh, October 25-26, 1991. Abstracts of 500-600 words for 20-minute papers should be sent to Dr. Barbara N. Sargent-Baur, 1328 C.L., University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA, by May 1, 1991. "Place and Displacement in the Renaissance." To be held at the Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, State University of New York at Binghamton, October 18-19, 1991. Abstracts or completed papers (the latter given preference) to be submitted by May 20, 1991 to Prof. Alvin Vos, CEMERS, State University of New York, Binghamton, New York, 13902 USA. International Society for the History of Rhetoric. Meeting to be held in Baltimore/Washington, September 25-29, 1991. For information and abstract form write Prof. N. Struever, Humanities Center, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, 21218, USA. CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENTS: The Folger Shakespeare Library Fall Seminars and Workshops "Erasmus and the French Renaissance," Edwin M. Duval, Fridays at 1pm, September 21 - December 14. "Problems of Historicist Research in the Renaissance," Stanley Fish, November 30 and December 1. "Scots and Britons: Scottish Political Thought and the Union of 1603," Roger A. Mason, Thursdays and Fridays at 1pm, September 20 - December 14. "Theory as Practice: Ethical Inquiry in the Renaissance," Nancy S. Streuver, Wednesdays at 1pm, September 19 - December 12. "Renaissance Paleography in England," Laetitia Yeandle, Thursdays at 1pm, September 20 - December 13. The Folger Shakespeare Library Spring Seminars: "Desire in Shakespeare," Catherine Belsey, Fridays at 1pm, January 25 - April 19. "Printing and Publishing in the Age of Shakespeare," Peter W.M. Blayney, Thursdays at 1pm, January 24 - April 18. "The Historiography of Seventeenth-Century Women's Literature," Margaret J.M. Ezell, Saturdays at 1:30pm, January 26 - April 20. "Culture and Anarchy in Three Renaissance Cities: Nuremberg, Venice, and Amsterdam," Anthony Grafton, Thursdays at 1pm, January 24 - April 18. "The European Renaissance Garden and its Aftermath (1500- 1750)," John Dixon Hunt, Saturdays at 9am, January 26 - April 27. "Sexuality, the Family, and Republican Politics in Late Eighteenth-Century France," Lynn Hunt, Fridays at 1pm, January 25 - April 19. The Folger Shakespeare Library Late Spring Seminars: "Islam in the Renaissance," Bernard Lewis, Wednesdays and Fridays at 1pm, May 22 - June 28. "Union, State and Empire: The Political Identities of Britain, 1688-1750," John C. Robertson, Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays at 1pm, May 20 - June 27. The Folger Shakespeare Library Evening Colloquia: "Early Modern Religion and Popular Culture," Tomaso Astarita and James B. Collins, one Wednesday per month at 5pm, beginning September 19. "Women in the Eighteenth Century," Susan S. Lanser, One Thursday per month at 5pm, beginning September 20. The Folger Shakespeare Library Summer Humanities Institute: "Ceremony and Text in the Renaissance," Thomas M. Greene (Yale University), 17 June to 26 July 1991. Fifteen stipends funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities are available to eligible participants. The application deadline is March 1, 1991. For application forms and information on any of these programs, on the Folger Institute Center for the History of British Political Thought, and on the Folger Institute Center for Shakespeare Studies, contact the Folger Institute, 201 E. Capital Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003-1094 USA, or telephone (202) 544-4600. The Seventh Citadel Conference on Literature. "The Poetry, Drama, and Prose of the Renaissance and Middle Ages," February 28 - March 2, 1991. Featured speakers are David Bevington and A.C. Spearing. For information, write Robert A. White, Department of English, The Citadel, Charleston, SC 29409 USA, (803) 792-5134. The Shakespeare Association of America will meet in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, March 21-23 1991. For more information write the SAA c/o Nancy Hodge, English Department, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275, USA. The SAA Programme is available as VANCOUVR CONFERNC on the SHAKSPER Fileserver. The International Shakespeare Association World Congress will take place in Tokyo, Japan, August 11-17 1991. The theme will be "Shakespeare and Cultural Traditions." The ISA Outline Programme is available as TOKYO CONFERNC on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, and travel information as TOKYO TRAVEL. The Newberry Library Center for Renaissance Studies. Seminars, conferences, a summer institute, and lectures. For information, contact Mary Beth Rose, Director, Newberry Library Center for Renaissance Studies, 60 W. Walton Street, Chicago IL 60610, (312) 943-9090. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Nov 90 10:35:25 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0111 SHAKSPER Fileserver Contents Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 111. Tuesday, 20 Nov 1990. Date: Tue, 20 Nov 90 10:27:48 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Current Contents of the SHAKSPER Fileserver Because of significant additions to the SHAKSPER Fileserver in the past week, I am distributing the SHAKSPER FILES listing to all members of the conference. In particular, note the changes in the "Announcements" and "Reference" sections. Ken File Package for New Members: ------------------------------------------------------------------- NEWMEMBR PACKAGE Order this file to receive the package SHAKSPER GUIDE The User Manual for members of SHAKSPER SHAKSPER MEMBERS A recent list of SHAKSPER members SHAKSPER FILES This file, describing the Fileserver's contents The New Member Package also includes recent SHAKSPER Logbooks and the Member Biography files (though not the program). Member Biography File(s) and Retrieval Program: ------------------------------------------------------------------- BIOGRAFY PACKAGE Order this file to receive the package 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 (in progress) BIOGRAFY EXEC A CMS retrieval program for the SHAKSPER biography files, by Jim Coombs BIOGRAFY HELPCMS A help file for the CMS biography program Announcements: -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFERNC DIRECTRY A continually-updated directory of calls for papers and conference announcements relevant to Shakespearean and Renaissance studies. Additions welcome. SHAKSPER ANNOUNCE An introduction to the SHAKSPER Conference, and instructions on becoming a member. [This file is available for redistribution.] FICINO ANNOUNCE An introduction to the FICINO Bitnet seminar, operated by the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies (CRRS), Toronto. Also includes a membership application form. TOKYO TRAVEL Shakespeare Association of America Travel Plan for 1991 International Shakespeare Association World Congress in Tokyo, Japan TOKYO CONFERNC International Shakespeare Association Programme for 1991 World Congress in Tokyo, Japan VANCOUVR CONFERNC Shakespeare Association of America Programme for 1991 Annual Meeting in Vancouver, BC, Canada DIRECTRY ANNOUNCE An announcement of the SHAKSPER Directory of Shakespeare Institutions, and a request for member contributions to its contents RESEARCH INDEX An announcement of the SHAKSPER Index of Work in Progress (WORK-IN PROGRESS) and a request for all members to submit information Reference Files: -------------------------------------------------------------------- DIRECTRY INSTITUT A directory of Shakespearean institutes, organizations, journals, and libraries. Additions welcome. WORKS-IN PROGRESS An index of works in progress, in press, recently published, and dissertations being supervised by SHAKSPEReans. Additions welcome. RIVERSID ERRORS A listing of errors in the Electronic Text Corporation WordCruncher Riverside Shakespeare compiled by Ken Steele. Additions welcome. WATERLOO TEXTBASE Detailed information supplied by the Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary, at the University of Waterloo, Ontario. The project combines the Oxford University Press electronic Complete Works of William Shakespeare (modern spelling) with the retrieval software prepared for the generation of the New OED. SPINOFF BIBLIO A bibliography of poems, novels, plays, and films inspired by Shakespeare's life and works. Compiled by Lawrence Schimel, Yale University. Additions welcome. CHARACTR BIBLIO A bibliography of works in which Shakespeare figures as a character. Compiled by Lawrence Schimel, Yale University. Additions welcome. OXFORD ARCHIVE Medieval & Renaissance English electronic texts available from the Oxford Text Archive, and details regarding sources and formats. (Updated October 25, 1990) OXFORD BROCHURE A general introduction to the Oxford Text Archive, accompanied by ordering forms and ordering information. Scholarly Papers: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Hardy M. Cook. "A Shakespearean in the Electronic Study." A paper submitted to the computing approaches seminar of the 1990 SAA conference in Philadelphia. (ELECTRON STUDY) Thomas B. Horton. (Thesis Abstract) A stylometric analysis of Shakespeare and Fletcher. (STYLOMET FLETCHER) Stephen Matsuba. "`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) Stanley D. McKenzie, "The Prudence and Kinship of Prince Hal and John of Lancaster in 2 Henry IV." (PRUDENCE KINSHIP) Kenneth B. Steele. "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) Gary Waller, "Teaching the Late Plays as Family Romance." (FAMILY ROMANCE) SHAKSPER Quarto/Folio Textbase: ------------------------------------------------------------------- TEXTBASE ANNOUNCE A SHAKSPER Announcement of a new on-line resource for members -- the Quarto/Folio Textbase Kenneth B. Steele. "`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) SHAKSPER Monthly Logbooks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- All conference transmissions are automatically logged by ListServ in rather mechanically-named monthly notebooks. 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) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fileserver Procedures: SHAKSPEReans can retrieve files or logbooks from the SHAKSPER Fileserver by issuing the interactive command, "TELL LISTSERV AT UTORONTO GET fname ftype SHAKSPER". If your network link does not support the interactive "TELL" command, or if Listserv rejects your request, then send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@utoronto, reading "GET fname ftype SHAKSPER". For a complete list of files available, send the command "GET SHAKSPER FILES SHAKSPER" to obtain an annotated index. (Note that the "INDEX SHAKSPER" and "GET FILELIST SHAKSPER" commands will result in an *un*annotated list generated automatically by Listserv. These lists include size information, but are less legible to human eyes.) For further information, consult the appropriate section of your SHAKSPER GUIDE, or contact the editor, or . ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Nov 90 16:04:22 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0110 SHAKSPER Fileserver Current Contents Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 111. Tuesday, 20 Nov 1990. Date: Tue, 20 Nov 90 10:27:48 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Current Contents of the SHAKSPER Fileserver Because of significant additions to the SHAKSPER Fileserver in the past week, I am distributing the SHAKSPER FILES listing to all members of the conference. In particular, note the changes in the "Announcements" and "Reference" sections. Ken File Package for New Members: ------------------------------------------------------------------- NEWMEMBR PACKAGE Order this file to receive the package SHAKSPER GUIDE The User Manual for members of SHAKSPER SHAKSPER MEMBERS A recent list of SHAKSPER members SHAKSPER FILES This file, describing the Fileserver's contents The New Member Package also includes recent SHAKSPER Logbooks and the Member Biography files (though not the program). Member Biography File(s) and Retrieval Program: ------------------------------------------------------------------- BIOGRAFY PACKAGE Order this file to receive the package 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 (in progress) BIOGRAFY EXEC A CMS retrieval program for the SHAKSPER biography files, by Jim Coombs BIOGRAFY HELPCMS A help file for the CMS biography program Announcements: -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFERNC DIRECTRY A continually-updated directory of calls for papers and conference announcements relevant to Shakespearean and Renaissance studies. Additions welcome. SHAKSPER ANNOUNCE An introduction to the SHAKSPER Conference, and instructions on becoming a member. [This file is available for redistribution.] FICINO ANNOUNCE An introduction to the FICINO Bitnet seminar, operated by the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies (CRRS), Toronto. Also includes a membership application form. TOKYO TRAVEL Shakespeare Association of America Travel Plan for 1991 International Shakespeare Association World Congress in Tokyo, Japan TOKYO CONFERNC International Shakespeare Association Programme for 1991 World Congress in Tokyo, Japan VANCOUVR CONFERNC Shakespeare Association of America Programme for 1991 Annual Meeting in Vancouver, BC, Canada DIRECTRY ANNOUNCE An announcement of the SHAKSPER Directory of Shakespeare Institutions, and a request for member contributions to its contents RESEARCH INDEX An announcement of the SHAKSPER Index of Work in Progress (WORK-IN PROGRESS) and a request for all members to submit information Reference Files: -------------------------------------------------------------------- DIRECTRY INSTITUT A directory of Shakespearean institutes, organizations, journals, and libraries. Additions welcome. WORKS-IN PROGRESS An index of works in progress, in press, recently published, and dissertations being supervised by SHAKSPEReans. Additions welcome. RIVERSID ERRORS A listing of errors in the Electronic Text Corporation WordCruncher Riverside Shakespeare compiled by Ken Steele. Additions welcome. WATERLOO TEXTBASE Detailed information supplied by the Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary, at the University of Waterloo, Ontario. The project combines the Oxford University Press electronic Complete Works of William Shakespeare (modern spelling) with the retrieval software prepared for the generation of the New OED. SPINOFF BIBLIO A bibliography of poems, novels, plays, and films inspired by Shakespeare's life and works. Compiled by Lawrence Schimel, Yale University. Additions welcome. CHARACTR BIBLIO A bibliography of works in which Shakespeare figures as a character. Compiled by Lawrence Schimel, Yale University. Additions welcome. OXFORD ARCHIVE Medieval & Renaissance English electronic texts available from the Oxford Text Archive, and details regarding sources and formats. (Updated October 25, 1990) OXFORD BROCHURE A general introduction to the Oxford Text Archive, accompanied by ordering forms and ordering information. Scholarly Papers: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Hardy M. Cook. "A Shakespearean in the Electronic Study." A paper submitted to the computing approaches seminar of the 1990 SAA conference in Philadelphia. (ELECTRON STUDY) Thomas B. Horton. (Thesis Abstract) A stylometric analysis of Shakespeare and Fletcher. (STYLOMET FLETCHER) Stephen Matsuba. "`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) Stanley D. McKenzie, "The Prudence and Kinship of Prince Hal and John of Lancaster in 2 Henry IV." (PRUDENCE KINSHIP) Kenneth B. Steele. "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) Gary Waller, "Teaching the Late Plays as Family Romance." (FAMILY ROMANCE) SHAKSPER Quarto/Folio Textbase: ------------------------------------------------------------------- TEXTBASE ANNOUNCE A SHAKSPER Announcement of a new on-line resource for members -- the Quarto/Folio Textbase Kenneth B. Steele. "`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) SHAKSPER Monthly Logbooks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- All conference transmissions are automatically logged by ListServ in rather mechanically-named monthly notebooks. 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) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fileserver Procedures: SHAKSPEReans can retrieve files or logbooks from the SHAKSPER Fileserver by issuing the interactive command, "TELL LISTSERV AT UTORONTO GET fname ftype SHAKSPER". If your network link does not support the interactive "TELL" command, or if Listserv rejects your request, then send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@utoronto, reading "GET fname ftype SHAKSPER". For a complete list of files available, send the command "GET SHAKSPER FILES SHAKSPER" to obtain an annotated index. (Note that the "INDEX SHAKSPER" and "GET FILELIST SHAKSPER" commands will result in an *un*annotated list generated automatically by Listserv. These lists include size information, but are less legible to human eyes.) For further information, consult the appropriate section of your SHAKSPER GUIDE, or contact the editor, or . ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Nov 90 16:05:28 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0111 New SHAKSPER Conference Directory Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 110. Tuesday, 20 Nov 1990. Date: Tue, 20 Nov 90 10:14:16 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: New SHAKSPER Conference Directory Dear Fellow SHAKSPEReans; Here is the first version of the SHAKSPER Conference Directory, a guide to upcoming Shakespearean and Renaissance scholarly meetings, seminars, and conferences and to calls for papers for the same. I have posted it today on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, and will update it regularly. Please contact me with any suggestions, corrections, or additions -- they will be most welcome. Yours, Ken Steele University of Toronto SHAKSPER Conference Directory November 20, 1990 This file is available in continually-updated form as CONFERNC DIRECTRY on the SHAKSPER Fileserver at UTORONTO. Its entries have been culled from a variety of sources, including *Shakespeare Association of America* Bulletins, *International Shakespeare Association* Mailings, *Shakespeare Quarterly*, *Shakespeare Bulletin*, the paper version of the *CRRS Newsletter*, and individual contributions by members of SHAKSPER. Corrections and additions are always welcomed by the editor, Ken Steele, at . CALLS FOR PAPERS: Pacific Northwest Renaissance Society. Fifteen minute (10 page) papers in all areas of Renaissance study. Include title and 250-300 word abstract. Final drafts to be submitted by December 14, 1990 for acceptance by January 31, 1991. Send papers and abstracts to Paul Budra, Department of English, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6. 14th International Conference on Elizabethan Theatre. To be held at the University of Waterloo, July 22-26, 1991. Short papers on "Women and the Elizabethan Theatre" are invited to supplement a programme of invited addresses. Papers concerned with Elizabethan and Jacobean drama apart from Shakespeare are particularly welcome. Submissions, not exceeding ten pages, should be sent by January 15, 1991 to Lynne Magnusson or Ted McGee, Department of English, University of Waterloo, Waterloo Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1. . Canadian Society for Renaissance Studies. Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, May 28-30, 1991. 20-minute papers on the following topics: Literary Translations, Drama and Society, Women Writers, Women and Power, Militant Literature, Latin in the Renaissance, Science and Natural Philosophy, or Open Topics. Submit abstracts or papers by January 15, 1991 to Professor Max Vernet, Department of French, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6. "Patronage of Artists, Writers, and Scientists." Pennsylvania Symposium on Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 5th Annual Meeting, University of Pittsburgh, October 25-26, 1991. Abstracts of 500-600 words for 20-minute papers should be sent to Dr. Barbara N. Sargent-Baur, 1328 C.L., University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA, by May 1, 1991. "Place and Displacement in the Renaissance." To be held at the Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, State University of New York at Binghamton, October 18-19, 1991. Abstracts or completed papers (the latter given preference) to be submitted by May 20, 1991 to Prof. Alvin Vos, CEMERS, State University of New York, Binghamton, New York, 13902 USA. International Society for the History of Rhetoric. Meeting to be held in Baltimore/Washington, September 25-29, 1991. For information and abstract form write Prof. N. Struever, Humanities Center, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, 21218, USA. CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENTS: The Folger Shakespeare Library Fall Seminars and Workshops "Erasmus and the French Renaissance," Edwin M. Duval, Fridays at 1pm, September 21 - December 14. "Problems of Historicist Research in the Renaissance," Stanley Fish, November 30 and December 1. "Scots and Britons: Scottish Political Thought and the Union of 1603," Roger A. Mason, Thursdays and Fridays at 1pm, September 20 - December 14. "Theory as Practice: Ethical Inquiry in the Renaissance," Nancy S. Streuver, Wednesdays at 1pm, September 19 - December 12. "Renaissance Paleography in England," Laetitia Yeandle, Thursdays at 1pm, September 20 - December 13. The Folger Shakespeare Library Spring Seminars: "Desire in Shakespeare," Catherine Belsey, Fridays at 1pm, January 25 - April 19. "Printing and Publishing in the Age of Shakespeare," Peter W.M. Blayney, Thursdays at 1pm, January 24 - April 18. "The Historiography of Seventeenth-Century Women's Literature," Margaret J.M. Ezell, Saturdays at 1:30pm, January 26 - April 20. "Culture and Anarchy in Three Renaissance Cities: Nuremberg, Venice, and Amsterdam," Anthony Grafton, Thursdays at 1pm, January 24 - April 18. "The European Renaissance Garden and its Aftermath (1500- 1750)," John Dixon Hunt, Saturdays at 9am, January 26 - April 27. "Sexuality, the Family, and Republican Politics in Late Eighteenth-Century France," Lynn Hunt, Fridays at 1pm, January 25 - April 19. The Folger Shakespeare Library Late Spring Seminars: "Islam in the Renaissance," Bernard Lewis, Wednesdays and Fridays at 1pm, May 22 - June 28. "Union, State and Empire: The Political Identities of Britain, 1688-1750," John C. Robertson, Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays at 1pm, May 20 - June 27. The Folger Shakespeare Library Evening Colloquia: "Early Modern Religion and Popular Culture," Tomaso Astarita and James B. Collins, one Wednesday per month at 5pm, beginning September 19. "Women in the Eighteenth Century," Susan S. Lanser, One Thursday per month at 5pm, beginning September 20. The Folger Shakespeare Library Summer Humanities Institute: "Ceremony and Text in the Renaissance," Thomas M. Greene (Yale University), 17 June to 26 July 1991. Fifteen stipends funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities are available to eligible participants. The application deadline is March 1, 1991. For application forms and information on any of these programs, on the Folger Institute Center for the History of British Political Thought, and on the Folger Institute Center for Shakespeare Studies, contact the Folger Institute, 201 E. Capital Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003-1094 USA, or telephone (202) 544-4600. The Seventh Citadel Conference on Literature. "The Poetry, Drama, and Prose of the Renaissance and Middle Ages," February 28 - March 2, 1991. Featured speakers are David Bevington and A.C. Spearing. For information, write Robert A. White, Department of English, The Citadel, Charleston, SC 29409 USA, (803) 792-5134. The Shakespeare Association of America will meet in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, March 21-23 1991. For more information write the SAA c/o Nancy Hodge, English Department, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275, USA. The SAA Programme is available as VANCOUVR CONFERNC on the SHAKSPER Fileserver. The International Shakespeare Association World Congress will take place in Tokyo, Japan, August 11-17 1991. The theme will be "Shakespeare and Cultural Traditions." The ISA Outline Programme is available as TOKYO CONFERNC on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, and travel information as TOKYO TRAVEL. The Newberry Library Center for Renaissance Studies. Seminars, conferences, a summer institute, and lectures. For information, contact Mary Beth Rose, Director, Newberry Library Center for Renaissance Studies, 60 W. Walton Street, Chicago IL 60610, (312) 943-9090. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Nov 90 07:43:53 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0112 Technical Difficulties Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 112. Wednesday, 21 Nov 1990. Date: Wed, 21 Nov 90 07:28:22 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: We were Experiencing Technical Difficulties... Dear Fellow SHAKSPEReans; Please accept my apologies for the rather confusing mailings of yesterday. I HAD thought that we had ironed out all the technical difficulties before SHAKSPER even began Volume 1 (there was a Volume 0 of test messages between myself and a few patient colleagues), but evidently that was wishful thinking. You received two copies of both (rather lengthy) digests yesterday, apparently because a technical problem here at Toronto prevented me from receiving either mailing until 24 hours later. In future I will exercise more patience, but my natural assumption was that the mailings did not reach Listserv for redistribution. (Normally I receive the return mailing within an hour, at most.) This is probably the same glitch which resulted in a repeated message earlier this month -- and I rest secure in the knowledge that the SHAKSPER LOG9011 file will preserve these errors for posterity. The imaginative variation in digest numbering was entirely my own. While we're discussing basic technical details, I would also like to mention a number of reports of missed mail. Please note that the SHAKSPER digests are all numbered sequentially; if you miss a number (or if I miss one), please be sure to let me know. Some members have been missing mail intermittently, and I would like to know the extent and/or cause of the problem. (A few members are missing mail because their mailboxes are full, and mail is being returned to me. I have given up my earlier attempts to correct each situation, and now silently delete the returned mail. SHAKSPER members can retrieve any missed mail from the logbooks on the Fileserver -- see your SHAKSPER GUIDE for details). My apologies for overloading your mailboxes; long-time SHAKSPEReans will know that this does not happen often at all, but newer members (particularly those who, like Michael Warren, joined us yesterday) will assume that EVERY day is like this, receiving New Member Packages, Logbooks, and four massive mailings. I assure them it is not, and I assure you all I am investigating the problem. Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Nov 90 07:51:45 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0113 Shakespearean Spinoffs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 113. Wednesday, 21 Nov 1990. (1) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 90 15:48:00 EST (13 lines) From: Subject: spinoffs (2) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 90 11:37:00 EST (29 lines) From: A10PRR1@NIU Subject: Spinoffs (3) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 90 23:29:29 EST (15 lines) From: Lawrence Schimel Subject: 18th century spinoffs (4) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 90 07:18:54 EST (22 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Spinoffs (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 90 15:48:00 EST From: Subject: spinoffs Arthur C. Clarke's new novel, RAMA II, written in collaboration with Gentry Lee, contains a character who is a Shakespeare aficionado and creates small robot characters such as Bottom and Puck. Judy Boss University of Nebraska at Omaha eng003@unoma1 (2) --------------------------------------------------------------51---- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 90 11:37:00 EST From: A10PRR1@NIU Subject: Spinoffs Those of you interested in spinoffs might like to know about a little book by Volney Streamer, _Book Titles from Shakespeare_ (privately printed 1901; 2nd ed. 1911). Streamer lists, without annotation, book and play titles derived from lines in Shakespeare. The earliest use he finds is Leigh Hunt's _Table Talk_, and the greatest use is by Wm Dean Howells (13 titles). Most of the authors are not familiar to me, but here are a few sample entries: William Dean Howells A Circle in the Water (Hen VI) A Foregone Conclusion (Oth) A Modern Instance (AYLI) Charles Gibbon A Hard Knot (12th Night) Jessie Fothergill Made or Marred (Oth) James Payn A Stumble on the Threshold (Hen VI) F. H. Howe Thy Name is Woman (Ham) Philip Rider Northern Illinois University (3) --------------------------------------------------------------34---- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 90 23:29:29 EST From: Lawrence Schimel Subject: 18th century spinoffs While researching in order to compile the spinoff bibliography I came across a book by Robert Gale Noyes entitled the Thespian Mirror (Brown University Press, 1953) which is an analysis of 18th century novels which make use of or allude to Shakespeare. Of 750 books from the period which were analyzed he says that one in seven contained some reference to Shakespeare. It's going to take me quite some time to work through this and add them all to the list, especially since the book is in prose as opposed to bibliography form. But there should be a massive update forthcoming (it will also include Mr. Cook's wonderful list of film refernces which I had not yet received when I sent the first draft of SPINOFF BIBLIO to the Fileserver). (4) --------------------------------------------------------------26---- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 90 07:18:54 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Spinoffs Today I received the rather amusing and very modest biography of a new SHAKSPERean, Mickey Rogers. In it he doubts his ability to contribute to the discussion on SHAKSPER, but manages to address one of our current topics without knowing what we've been discussing. I hope he will be flattered rather than embarrassed if I add the note from his biography to our discussion of Shakespearean Spinoffs. KS. --------------------------------- At the university we have an instructor by the name of Fred Curchak. His field is Art and Performance. Fred developed a one man show called "Stuff" that received national acclaim. "Stuff" is a takeoff on The Tempest and it is through Fred's influence that I've developed an interest in Shakespeare. Mickey Rogers UT Dallas ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Nov 90 08:01:45 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0114 Work in Progress Index Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 114. Wednesday, 21 Nov 1990. (1) Date: 19 November 1990, 15:59:01 EST (12 lines) From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: [Work In Progress Index] (2) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 90 07:52:47 EST (18 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: WORK-IN PROGRESS Index (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 November 1990, 15:59:01 EST From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: [Work In Progress Index] A list of works in progress is a good idea, but you might include at its head a disclaimer about staking off turf. Perhaps you could ask contributors to include a terminus, or a date after which they won't work on the topic, or a date by which they much, sorry *must*, be finished with it. I know of one scholar who was going to write on Omnipotence, Omnipresence and Omniscience in Milton, for about twenty-five years, then didn't. Cheers, Roy (2) --------------------------------------------------------------21---- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 90 07:52:47 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: WORK-IN PROGRESS Index I don't think anyone should think of an entry in the WORK-IN PROGRESS Index as a staying entry from the Stationers' Register. SHAKSPER has no authority to grant exclusive rights to anyone -- but your idea will be dated and recorded in electronic records should you want to pursue legal action, and the members of SHAKSPER will be witnesses, I suppose. My sample entries included such dating, disguised as "ETA"s (for non-fans of television police drama, "Estimated Time of Arrival"). My hope is that such an index will indicate neglected areas of research, help to avoid duplicating efforts, and keep us all abreast of the latest developments. Any other suggestions or comments on the idea? Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Nov 90 15:39:35 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0116 Textual Studies in Canada Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 116. Wednesday, 21 Nov 1990. Date: Mon, 12 Nov 90 20:35:31 EST From: Germaine Warkentin Subject: Textual Studies in Canada This notice announces the founding of _TSC: Textual Studies in Canada_ / _ETC: Etudes Textualles au Canada_. TSC will provide a collaborative and interdisciplinary forum in which researchers and teachers can address issues related to the study of texts within a Canadian context. We are interested in how texts are composed, read, and variously defined according to disciplinary and cultural presuppositions. Appropriate subjects include Canadian literature (including "non-fiction"), popular culture, rhetoric, composition, reading theory, translation, pedagogy, Canadian Studies, feminism, and critical theory. In keeping with TSC's definition as a "collaborative" journal, we are particularly interested in receiving articles of joint or multiple authorship. We believe that writers do not compose in social vacuums, that writing is a dialogical process, and that, therefore, the meanings of texts are to be found largely in their relations to the discourse and texts of others. TSC is thus interested in exploring such issues as what motivates writing and reading; where texts come from, who writes them, and who reads them; how texts function and how they are used. TSC seeks to explore notions of writer, text and reader, and to make visible the communal and consensual interaction involved in authorship. Articles accepted will receive extensive feedback, and published versions will acknowledge, insofar as possible, the collaborative efforts of all parties and texts involved. Poetry, especially that related to issues of "textuality", is welcome. Address inquiries to: Editors, _Textual Studies in Canada_, Dept. of English, Box 3010, Cariboo University College, Kamloops, B.C., V2C 5N3, Canada. [Cited from Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 4, No. 0730. Tuesday, 20 Nov 1990, with author's permission.] ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Nov 90 15:37:24 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0115 Shakespearean Spinoffs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 115. Wednesday, 21 Nov 1990. (1) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 90 13:48 EST (22 lines) From: SHAND@Venus.YorkU.CA Subject: spinoffs (2) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 90 12:56:18 EST (11 lines) From: JLH5651@VENUS.TAMU.EDU Subject: SHK.1.0095 Shakespeare Spinoffs? (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 90 13:48 EST From: SHAND@Venus.YorkU.CA Subject: spinoffs A few more random odds and ends: (a) all of Marowitz's Shakespeares (b) Ann-Marie MacDonald's wonderful play, *Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet)* Toronto: Coach House, 1990, which (I fondly hope) is about to win the Governor General's Gold for drama. (c) Mark Fortier, who is unfortunately unelectronic, as far as I know, did a recent York University dissertation on contemporary adaptations, including *Goodnight Desdemona* and also Rene Daniel Dubois' *Pericles*. Fortier has plenty of info, I think, and is available at the English Department, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario. (d) It's not published, as far as I know, but Peter Elliot Weiss created a *Tamara*-like adaptation called *The Haunted House Hamlet* at Tamahnous Theatre in Vancouver a couple of years ago, which he has described in some detail in a fairly recent issue of *Canadian Theatre Review*. [G.B. Skip Shand] (2) --------------------------------------------------------------26---- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 90 12:56:18 EST From: JLH5651@VENUS.TAMU.EDU Subject: SHK.1.0095 Shakespeare Spinoffs? For works inspired by Shakespeare or including him as a character see the General Shakespeareana/General Studies/Shakespeare as Influence and General Shakespeareana/General Studies/Shakespeare in Literature sections of the annual World Shakespeare Bibliography in *Shakespeare Quarterly*. Jim Harner ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Nov 90 23:48:43 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0117 Directory of Shakespearean Institutes Now Available Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 117. Wednesday, 21 Nov 1990. Date: Wed, 21 Nov 90 23:40:46 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Directory of Shakespearean Institutes now on SHAKSPER Fileserver Finally the first release of the SHAKSPER Directory of Shakespearean Organizations, Institutes, Projects and Journals has been placed on the SHAKSPER Fileserver for your retrieval and comments. Thus far it contains information on the following entities: Shakespearean Organizations: Deutsche Shakespeare-Gesellschaft West International Shakespeare Association (ISA) Pennsylvania Renaissance Seminar Shakespeare Association of America (SAA) Shakespeare Centre (Stratford-Upon-Avon) Shakespeare Institute, Birmingham (Stratford-Upon-Avon) West Virginia Shakespeare and Renaissance Association Shakespearean Institutes & Libraries: Folger Institute, Folger Shakespeare Library Huntington Library Newberry Library Pierpont Morgan Library Shakespearean Projects: Oxford University Press Electronic Oxford Shakespeare Munster Shakespeare Wordform Database Shakespeare on Disk Toronto Renaissance Textbase Waterloo Centre for the New OED and Text Research CMC ReSearch Complete Works of William Shakespeare I would greatly appreciate your corrections, additions, and comments. In particular, I am seeking further more accurate information on the Huntington Library, Newberry Library, and Pierpont Morgan Library. I hope members find this directory useful, and that it will continue to grow. Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Nov 90 10:31:06 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0118 REACH and SHAKSPER Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 118. Thursday, 22 Nov 1990. Date: Fri, 16 Nov 90 15:58:50 PST From: hcf1dahl@UCSBUXA.BITNET Subject: REACH newsletter The Humanities Computing Facility of the University of California at Santa Barbara publishes a periodic newsletter called REACH, Research and Educational Applications of Computers in the Humanities. Some HUMANISTS, I know, are already on the mailing list. If there are others who would like to receive it, just send me a note to that effect and I'll put you on the mailing list. There is no subscription charge for the publication. Eric Dahlin Humanities Computing Facility 4421 South Hall University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106 805/893-2208 [I have reproduced this HUMANIST posting because Eric Dahlin reports that the latest issue includes an article on SHAKSPER. I have already subscribed... KS.] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Nov 90 10:35:19 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0119 Mystery Spinoff Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 119. Thursday, 22 Nov 1990. Date: Wed, 21 Nov 90 15:20 EST From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: Mystery Spinoff I am surprised that no one has yet mentioned Josephine Tey's *The Daughter of Time* -- in which a bed-ridden detective determines that Richard III was framed by More/Shakespeare. Hardy Cook Bowie State University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 07:21:13 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0120 Colloquia, Electronic & Otherwise Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 120. Tuesday, 27 Nov 1990. (1) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 20:50 EST (22 lines) From: SHAND@Venus.YorkU.CA Subject: symposium announcement (2) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 90 15:49:44 CST (31 lines) From: Gerhard Gonter Subject: NEW LIST: VW5EARN@AWIWUW11.Bitnet Early Music List (3) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 11:07:56 EST (30 lines) From: "Patrick W. Conner" Subject: Support for REED-L (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 20:50 EST From: SHAND@Venus.YorkU.CA Subject: symposium announcement Ken: In case it hasn't yet reached your attention, this crossed my desk today. "*Measure for Measure* (Friday 5 April 1991): This one-day symposium will examine Shakespeare's puzzling and tendentious portrayal of urban decadence and ethical relativism. One of his darkest comedies, the play focuses on the still pressing issue of the relation between public law and private morality." For info, contact: Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 212 Royce Hall University of California 405 Hilgard Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024-1485 Cheers, Skip (2) --------------------------------------------------------------84---- Date: Sat, 24 Nov 90 15:49:44 CST From: Gerhard Gonter Subject: NEW LIST: VW5EARN@AWIWUW11.Bitnet Early Music List [This announcement has appeared on FICINO and REED-L, but seems appropriate here on SHAKSPER also. KS] VW5EARN@AWIWUW11.Bitnet Early Music List I hereby announce a mailing list about early music, which will be hosted at VW5EARN@AWIWUW11.BITNET Send your contributions and requests to this address. Topics: Anything about EARLY MUSIC (medieval, renaissance etc.) including comments/questions about a) (new) records b) books c) performances d) song texts & translations e) encoding early music scores in electronic form etc... Owner: Gerhard Gonter (3) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 11:07:56 EST From: "Patrick W. Conner" Subject: Support for REED-L [This announcement has appeared on ANSAXNET and FICINO, but seems appropriate here on SHAKSPER also. I would also like to urge SHAKSPEReans interested in the Records of Early English Drama project to subscribe. KS] A couple of years ago, I noted the development of an electronic discussion group called REED-L. That group is now hoping to increase its membership of medievalists. The purpose of this group is to foster discussion of early English drama, music, folk customs, and the myriad of other activities documented in REED volumes. This list, however, is not meant to be limiting: we hope that those with interests in early drama, art, and music elsewhere will also contribute from their perspectives. To join REED-L, contact the editor, Abigail Young, at REED@UTOREPAS or REED@VM.EPAS.UTORONTO.CA (Apparently, the first address is preferred within BITNET/ NETNORTH/EARN, and the second for inter-network mail.) Editor Young is particularly hopeful of instituting some fairly regular discusson on the subjects named above. If you research or teach any of these areas, you might want to join REED-L; Deus knows there are few enough medieval electronic discussion groups. --Pat ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 18:02:00 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0121 Character Names: Montanus? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 121. Tuesday, 27 Nov 1990. Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 17:46:56 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Montano/Montanus and Reynaldo/Silvius? Today I was rereading Thomas Lodge's *Rosalynde* (the novella which served as Shakespeare's source for *As You Like It*) and I was struck by the fact that Shakespeare seems to have changed the name of the lovestruck shepherd from "Montanus" to "Silvius." Now, obviously it's not unusual for him to change character names -- after all, he also changed "Sir John of Bourdeaux" to "Sir Rowland de Boys", "Saladyne" to "Oliver", "Rosader" to "Orlando", "Torismond" to "Frederick", "King Gerismond" to "Duke Senior", and "Alinda" to "Celia" -- but that Shakespeare should wish to avoid "Montanus" struck me as curious. "Montano", you may recall, is the name given to Reynoldo by the first quarto of *Hamlet*. A number of explanations have suggested that, for a University performance, it was considered wise to eliminate potentially offensive references in Reynoldo and Polonius (who is renamed "Corambis" in this first quarto). (You will remember that Montano is also governor of Cyprus in *Othello* -- but "to th' purpose...") Could there be any connection between Shakespeare's apparent aversion to "Montanus" in *Rosalynde* and the First Quarto's apparent preference for it to "Reynaldo"? How many other such tangles in character names do we get in Shakespeare? (If you think this is an unanswerable question, please feel free to answer the previous one, on Shakespearean spinoffs, which has proven so overwhelmingly answerable...) Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:17:31 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0122 Shakespearean Spinoffs: Humor on the Heath? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 122. Wednesday, 28 Nov 1990. Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 15:21:59 EST From: leosborn@COLBY.EDU (Laurie E. Osborne) Subject: [Shakespearean Spinoffs: Humor on the Heath? KS] This one comes to you thanks to a student who is getting into the act .... From Shrinklits by Maurice Sagoff, published by Workman Publishing, New York, in 1980. King Lear William Shakespeare Daughters three had aged Lear. Two were rotten, one sincere He misjudged the loving kid. Cursed and cut her off, he did. But the others, flushed with gain. Tossed him out into the rain. All his ganglia came untied; Sweet Cordelia reached his side Just too late to change the play - Overkill was underway: Lear succumbed, and all his girls, Plus his fool and various earls. - Ah, if but the womb would breed Kind, sincere and loving seed Full of filial thoughtfullness. None would perish in distress; Heaven on earth this life would be! Folks would die of sheer ennui. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:30:22 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0123 Montano/Mountanto? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 123. Wednesday, 28 Nov 1990. (1) Date: 28 November 1990, 09:02:36 EST (7 lines) From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: [Montano Query] (2) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:20:13 EST (22 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Mountanto/Montano (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 November 1990, 09:02:36 EST From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: [Montano Query] Don't have any books handy, but Beatrice puns on, what "Snr. Mountano," in *Much Ado*. Are the two connected? Roy (2) --------------------------------------------------------------26---- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:20:13 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Mountanto/Montano In *Much Ado About Nothing*, at 1.1.25, Beatrice refers to Benedick as "Signior Mountanto", yes. I'm not sure how to connect this to the other incidents, but perhaps someone has an idea. (Also the *Othello* reference is a loose end right now). I've been refining my idea a bit, and now realize that I didn't quite make the case as convincing as I could have. Suppose Q1 Hamlet reports Reynaldo's name as "Montano" as a reflection of the source play, the *Ur-Hamlet*, rather than a reflection of a change made in performance to avoid offense. In that case, Shakespeare could be seen avoiding "Montano" in the source material for *Hamlet* and "Montanus" in the source material for *As You Like It* (plays written consecutively or simultaneously by most chronologies!). Is this getting more interesting? More convincing, anyway? Ken Steele University of Toronto From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0123 Montano/Mountanto? To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 123. Wednesday, 28 Nov 1990. (1) Date: 28 November 1990, 09:02:36 EST (7 lines) From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: [Montano Query] (2) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:20:13 EST (22 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Mountanto/Montano (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 November 1990, 09:02:36 EST From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: [Montano Query] Don't have any books handy, but Beatrice puns on, what "Snr. Mountano," in *Much Ado*. Are the two connected? Roy (2) --------------------------------------------------------------26---- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:20:13 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Mountanto/Montano In *Much Ado About Nothing*, at 1.1.25, Beatrice refers to Benedick as "Signior Mountanto", yes. I'm not sure how to connect this to the other incidents, but perhaps someone has an idea. (Also the *Othello* reference is a loose end right now). I've been refining my idea a bit, and now realize that I didn't quite make the case as convincing as I could have. Suppose Q1 Hamlet reports Reynaldo's name as "Montano" as a reflection of the source play, the *Ur-Hamlet*, rather than a reflection of a change made in performance to avoid offense. In that case, Shakespeare could be seen avoiding "Montano" in the source material for *Hamlet* and "Montanus" in the source material for *As You Like It* (plays written consecutively or simultaneously by most chronologies!). Is this getting more interesting? More convincing, anyway? Received: from vm.epas.utoronto.ca by VM.UTCS.UTORONTO.CA (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 2860; Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:31:24 EST Received: by UTOREPAS (Mailer R2.03A) id 4995; Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:30:40 EST Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:30:22 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0123 Montano/Mountanto? To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 123. Wednesday, 28 Nov 1990. (1) Date: 28 November 1990, 09:02:36 EST (7 lines) From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: [Montano Query] (2) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:20:13 EST (22 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Mountanto/Montano (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 November 1990, 09:02:36 EST From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: [Montano Query] Don't have any books handy, but Beatrice puns on, what "Snr. Mountano," in *Much Ado*. Are the two connected? Roy (2) --------------------------------------------------------------26---- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:20:13 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Mountanto/Montano In *Much Ado About Nothing*, at 1.1.25, Beatrice refers to Benedick as "Signior Mountanto", yes. I'm not sure how to connect this to the other incidents, but perhaps someone has an idea. (Also the *Othello* reference is a loose end right now). I've been refining my idea a bit, and now realize that I didn't quite make the case as convincing as I could have. Suppose Q1 Hamlet reports Reynaldo's name as "Montano" as a reflection of the source play, the *Ur-Hamlet*, rather than a reflection of a change made in performance to avoid offense. In that case, Shakespeare could be seen avoiding "Montano" in the source material for *Hamlet* and "Montanus" in the source material for *As You Like It* (plays written consecutively or simultaneously by most chronologies!). Is this getting more interesting? More convincing, anyway? Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:56:09 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: 1.0124 [was Remailing of SHK 1.0124] Montano/Mountanto Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 123. Wednesday, 28 Nov 1990. [My apologies for the garbled form in which this mailing just went out. Here (hopefully) is a better version. The SHAKSPER Listserv seems to be churning things around a bit on its own. The problem is being investigated. KS] (1) Date: 28 November 1990, 09:02:36 EST (7 lines) From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: [Montano Query] (2) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:20:13 EST (22 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Mountanto/Montano (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 November 1990, 09:02:36 EST From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: [Montano Query] Don't have any books handy, but Beatrice puns on, what "Snr. Mountano," in *Much Ado*. Are the two connected? Roy (2) --------------------------------------------------------------26---- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:20:13 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Mountanto/Montano In *Much Ado About Nothing*, at 1.1.25, Beatrice refers to Benedick as "Signior Mountanto", yes. I'm not sure how to connect this to the other incidents, but perhaps someone has an idea. (Also the *Othello* reference is a loose end right now). I've been refining my idea a bit, and now realize that I didn't quite make the case as convincing as I could have. Suppose Q1 Hamlet reports Reynaldo's name as "Montano" as a reflection of the source play, the *Ur-Hamlet*, rather than a reflection of a change made in performance to avoid offense. In that case, Shakespeare could be seen avoiding "Montano" in the source material for *Hamlet* and "Montanus" in the source material for *As You Like It* (plays written consecutively or simultaneously by most chronologies!). Is this getting more interesting? More convincing, anyway? Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:56:09 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0124 [was Remailing of SHK 1.0124] Montano/Mountanto Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 123. Wednesday, 28 Nov 1990. [My apologies for the garbled form in which this mailing just went out. Here (hopefully) is a better version. The SHAKSPER Listserv seems to be churning things around a bit on its own. The problem is being investigated. KS] (1) Date: 28 November 1990, 09:02:36 EST (7 lines) From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: [Montano Query] (2) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:20:13 EST (22 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Mountanto/Montano (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 November 1990, 09:02:36 EST From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: [Montano Query] Don't have any books handy, but Beatrice puns on, what "Snr. Mountano," in *Much Ado*. Are the two connected? Roy (2) --------------------------------------------------------------26---- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:20:13 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Mountanto/Montano In *Much Ado About Nothing*, at 1.1.25, Beatrice refers to Benedick as "Signior Mountanto", yes. I'm not sure how to connect this to the other incidents, but perhaps someone has an idea. (Also the *Othello* reference is a loose end right now). I've been refining my idea a bit, and now realize that I didn't quite make the case as convincing as I could have. Suppose Q1 Hamlet reports Reynaldo's name as "Montano" as a reflection of the source play, the *Ur-Hamlet*, rather than a reflection of a change made in performance to avoid offense. In that case, Shakespeare could be seen avoiding "Montano" in the source material for *Hamlet* and "Montanus" in the source material for *As You Like It* (plays written consecutively or simultaneously by most chronologies!). Is this getting more interesting? More convincing, anyway? Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 17:09:37 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0125 Bitnet Seminars on the SHAKSPER Fileserver Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 125. Wednesday, 28 Nov 1990. Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 17:05:20 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Bitnet Seminars on the SHAKSPER Fileserver A new area has been set aside on the SHAKSPER Fileserver for announcements of Bitnet electronic conferences of relevance to SHAKSPEReans. Thus far the announcements included in this area are the following: SHAKSPER ANNOUNCE (In case you want a version of this file to distribute, electronically or on paper) FICINO ANNOUNCE Information about Ficino, the electronic seminar of the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies (CRRS) at the University of Toronto. ANSAXNET ANNOUNCE Information about the Anglo Saxonist seminar, ANSAX-L. Files are also being prepared on REED-L (the Records of Early English Drama Project seminar) and EXLIBRIS (The Rare Book List). These will be announced when they have been added to the Fileserver. Ken ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:50:30 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0124 SHAKSPER Membership Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 124. Wednesday, 28 Nov 1990. (1) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:33:11 EST (28 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Rapid Membership Growth (2) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:32:37 EST (136 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: The Current SHAKSPER Membership List (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:33:11 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Rapid Membership Growth Dear Fellow SHAKSPEReans; You've probably noticed a brief lag in SHAKSPER mailings; this can be explained as my response to overwhelming administrative duties. Since updated announcements went out to a number of humanities lists on Bitnet just a few days ago (ENGLISH, FICINO, HUMANIST, REED-L, ANSAXNet, and perhaps even a few I've forgotten now), I've received well over 50 new subscription requests, and have added about a dozen new members to SHAKSPER as a result. Although the manual subscription process takes a good deal of time, I think it creates a much more professional and amicable environment on SHAKSPER than automatic subscriptions would. Today SHAKSPER subscribed its one hundredth member (bells and whistles stage left and right -- sorry, there are no door prizes). I have been making it a practice to distribute the membership listing at 25-member intervals; this will soon have to be adapted, obviously. SHAKSPER now involves 100 members from seven countries: the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Japan, Korea, and Brazil. The current contents of the file SHAKSPER MEMBERS is below, for the reference of members who have not received the New Member Package recently. Ken (2) --------------------------------------------------------------140--- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 16:32:37 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: The Current SHAKSPER Membership List * * Following is a listing of current members of the Shakespeare * Electronic Conference. The list is automatically generated by * Listserv, alphabetically by email Node. Any member of SHAKSPER * can obtain an updated membership listing at any time by issuing * the interactive command, "TELL LISTSERV@UTORONTO REVIEW SHAKSPER", * or sending the mail command, "REVIEW SHAKSPER" to LISTSERV@ * UTORONTO. Note that this file is not equivalent to the * Biography files, also maintained on the SHAKSPER Fileserver. * * All members agree that this membership list is private, and is * not to be distributed, in whole or in part, outside the membership * of SHAKSPER. (c) 1990 SHAKSPER. * * SHAKSPER Electronic Conference - created 16 July 90 * R1AMF@AKRONVM Antonia Forster R1NR@AKRONVM Nicholas Ranson FFJL@ALASKA Janis Lull HDCHICKERING@AMHERST Howell D. Chickering GW0F@ANDREW.CMU.EDU Gary Waller LSEFTON@APPLE.COM Laurie Sefton CALIFFMA@BAYLOR Mary Elaine Califf HMCOOK@BOE.TOWSON.EDU Hardy M. Cook ST802200@BROWNVM Robert M. Ryan WOMWRITE@BROWNVM Elaine Brennan PHLCSW@BYUVM Camille S. Williams Alan_Rudrum@CC.SFU.CA Alan Rudrum jim_sexton@CC.SFU.CA Jim Sexton SABINSON@CCVAX.UNICAMP.ANSP.BR Eric M. Sabinson AL279@CLEVELAND.FREENET.EDU Judy Drotleff leosborn@COLBY.EDU Laurie E. Osborne TOM@CS.FAU.EDU Tom Horton COSMOS@CUA Spencer Cosmos WRIGHTS@CUA Stephen Wright MCCARTHY@CUAVAXA William J. McCarthy SURCC@CUNYVM Steven Urkowitz lisch@DAD.MENTOR.COM Ray Lischner katy@ENG.SUN.COM Katy Dickinson BRAITH@FRPERP51 Keith Braithwaite ELIASON@GACVAX1 Eric Eliason RASTLEY@GALLUA Russell Astley NEUMAN@GUVAX Michael Neuman WILDER@GUVAX Jim Wilderotter DAGRIER@GWUVM David Alan Grier GILMORE@GWUVM Matthew B. Gilmore mason@HABS11.ENET.DEC.COM Gary F. Mason DORENKAMP@HLYCROSS John H. Dorenkamp HWHALL@HLYCROSS Helen Whall CSC3CSB@HOFSTRA Chris Backa COX@HOPE John D. Cox FAC_MDHAWTHO@JMUVAX1 Mark D. Hawthorne KY9812@JPNSUT20 Akio Tanaka JONGSOOK@KRSNUCC1 Jongsook Lee JS525871I@LIUVAX Jeannette M. Schaffrath Thomas.H.Luxon@MAC.DARTMOUTH.EDU Tom Luxon HAMMOND@MCMASTER Antony Hammond MOYLEK@MCMASTER Kenneth C. Moyle 21798RAR@MSU Randal Robinson DS001451@NDSUVM1 Ray Wheeler MACGOWAN@NISC.SRI.COM Douglas MacGowan A10PRR1@NIU Philip Rider TB0WPW1@NIU William Proctor Williams UDLE031@OAK.CC.KCL.AC.UK Stephen Roy Miller SCB4768@OBERLIN Christopher Budd FLANNAGA@OUACCVMB Roy Flannagan JODONNEL@PENNSAS.UPENN.EDU James O'Donnell sinowitz@PILOT.NJIN.NET Jonah Sinowitz PJP23@PITTVMS Paul J. Pival PDJ2@PO.CWRU.EDU Peter D. Junger RABRAMS@PORTLAND Rick Abrams EN02@PRIMEB.DUNDEE.AC.UK R.J.C. Watt BCJ@PSUVM Kevin Berland SBYATES@PUCC Stan Yates AUDRA@QCVAX Audra Graber & Fred Herman SDMGLA@RITVAX.ISC.RIT.EDU Stanley D. McKenzie GA0708@SIUCVMB Herbert S. Donow SCOTT@SKLIB.USASK.CA Peter Scott LEE@SQARC.SQ.COM Liam Quin ACDRLK@SUVM Ron Kalinoski BLACKBURN@SWAT.SWARTHMORE.EDU Thomas H. Blackburn JLH5651@TAMVENUS James_L_Harner & Harrison_T_Meserole NMILLER@TRINCC Norman Miller JMORRIS@UALTAVM John Morris HASENFRA@UCONNVM Bob Hasenfratz mwarren@UCSCG.UCSC.EDU Michael Warren ccoughran@UCSD.EDU Charles S. Coughran RSCH2813@UHCL2 Chandima De Silva HART@UIUCVMD Michael S. Hart NEURINGER@UKANVAX Charles Neuringer RWILLIS@UKANVAX Ron Willis BEDEN@UKANVM Brad Eden DBBILL01@ULKYVM Dale B. Billingsley MH@UMNACVX Michael Hancher TSC@UMNACVX Thomas Clayton STARMAN@UNC Thomas W. Hocking JW_GOODR@UNHH John Goodrich ENG003@UNOMA1 Judith E. Boss FAC0287@UOFT01 Paul Fritz CSHUNTER@UOGUELPH C.S. Hunter MAINT@UQAM Peter Jones CREAMER@URVAX Kevin J.T. Creamer MICKEY@UTDALLAS Mickey Rogers HAG@UVMVM Hope Greenberg GW2@VAXB.YORK.AC.UK Geoffrey Wall NMILLER@VAX1.TRINCOLL.EDU Norman Miller shand@VENUS.YORKU.CA Skip Shand KKM7M@VIRGINIA Karen Kates Marshall KSTEELE@VM.EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Ken Steele mccarty@VM.EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Willard McCarty WARKENT@VM.EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Germaine Warkentin DS014805@VM1.NODAK.EDU Hardin Aasand CHESHIRE@VTVM1 Linda Anderson MATSUBA@WRITER.YORKU.CA Stephen Matsuba SCHLAWD@YALEVM Lawrence Schimel BOLTON@ZODIAC.RUTGERS.EDU Whitney Bolton * * Country Subscribers * ------- ----------- * ??? 30 * Canada 8 * France 1 * Japan 1 * Korea 1 * USA 59 * * Total number of "concealed" subscribers: 7 * Total number of users subscribed to the list: 100 (non-"concealed" only) * Total number of local node users on the list: 0 (non-"concealed" only) * Total number of countries represented: 6 (non-"concealed" only) * Total number of nodes represented: 86 (non-"concealed" only) * ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 17:24:11 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0126 1991 SAA Seminar Papers on SHAKSPER Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 126. Wednesday, 28 Nov 1990. Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 17:19:31 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: 1991 SAA Seminar Papers on SHAKSPER Fileserver SHAKSPER was originally conceived as a year-round forum to perpetuate discussion initiated by conference papers and seminars at the annual Shakespeare Association meetings, to store copies of seminar papers for easy retrieval by auditors, and to facilitate the advance planning of such seminars. SHAKSPER is now taking the first tentative steps in this direction, with the inauguration of a Fileserver area devoted to abstracts and seminar papers for the 1991 Shakespeare Association of America conference (scheduled for Vancouver, British Columbia, March 21-23). Seven members of SAA Seminar 3, "Shakespeare's Quartos: Text, Performance, Memory," including its two leaders, Linda Anderson and Janis Lull, are already members of SHAKSPER, and have agreed to circulate electronic copies of their abstracts and papers via the SHAKSPER Fileserver. SHAKSPEReans interested in auditing Seminar 3, or interested in the subject but unable to attend the Vancouver conference, are welcome to retrieve abstracts and papers, and to participate in the advance discussions here on SHAKSPER, which I hope will be both vigorous and thought-provoking. Conventional mail has always allowed seminar members to read each other's papers in preparation for conferences, and occasionally to write responses. SHAKSPER, however, should permit dialogue to a revolutionary degree: seminar members and auditors can review abstracts, make comments and suggestions, adapt their research in response to this discussion, and distribute final papers. It is my hope that this experiment will prove sufficiently successful to demonstrate the potential of electronic mail and SHAKSPER to the Shakespeare Association at large. SHAKSPEReans writing papers for other sessions at the 1991 SAA conference are also heartily encouraged to submit electronic copies of abstracts, drafts, and/or completed papers to me for inclusion on the SHAKSPER Fileserver. Authors are welcome to ask fellow SHAKSPEReans for comments and suggestions on abstracts or draft papers, or to raise related issues in notes or queries. (Please see the guidelines for submitted files in the new version of the SHAKSPER GUIDE, available from the Fileserver.) For now, then, let me announce the first abstract in the Seminar 3 area of the Fileserver: Skip Shand's "Queen of the First Quarto," a performance-oriented study of the figure of Gertrude in the first quarto of *Hamlet*. (Stored as SHAND ABSTRACT on the Fileserver.) More abstracts should be joining it by the end of November, and final papers should be in place by February. Let me encourage seminar members and especially SHAKSPEReans unable to attend the conference to discuss questions raised by these abstracts and papers right here on SHAKSPER. I have no doubt that there will be plenty left to say in Vancouver! Ken Steele University of Toronto [General information on the 1991 SAA Conference and its Programme can be found in the file VANCOUVR CONFERNC on the SHAKSPER Fileserver.] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 16:24:12 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0127 REED, Early Music Discussion Groups Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 127. Thursday, 29 Nov 1990. (1) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 16:13:58 EST (61 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Records of Early English Drama Bitnet Seminar (2) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 16:16:38 EST (64 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Early Music Bitnet Discussion Group (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 16:13:58 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Records of Early English Drama Bitnet Seminar REED-L: Records of Early English Drama Bitnet List [I have taken this introduction to REED-L from the first mailing in the REED logbooks. KS] A good way to start, I think, is to explain what REED is about. The statement at the front of our volumes states: "The aim of Records of Early English Drama (REED) is to find, transcribe, and publish external evidence of dramatic, ceremonial, and minstrel activity in Great Britian before 1642." In pursuit of that goal, REED has brought out thus far records collections for York, Coventry, Chester, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Norwich 1540-1642 (pre-1540 Norwich is in progress), Cumberland, Westmoreland, Gloucestershire (those three bound in one volume), Devon, and the town and university of Cambridge. As you can see, REED started off with areas distinguished by cycle drama, and has been moving into less well known material with the county collections. The collections currently under preparation are also county ones: Herefordshire and Worcestershire. A good deal of folk activity, such as Robin Hood plays and morris dancing, is emerging in the county volumes. Part of the goal of the collections is to print the primary source material with as little editorial interpretation as possible, leaving the interpretative activity for a different forum. Those of you who are up on theatre history debates in North America at least will be aware that recently some have questioned the possibility of success, or even the propriety, of such an attempt. Over the course of the published collections, REED has progressively cast its nets more widely as we have come to recognise a wider range of activities which could be classified as dramatic or semi-dramatic and as we have realised the possibilities in types of archives whose importance was not originally understood. It is to be hoped that this kind of development will continue for the life of the project. REED is not officially or formally sponsoring this discussion group, except insofar as we are using the REED computer account. Opinions expressed by me are thus simply my opinions and should not be taken as expressions of policy! The goal is to discuss, even argue, about matters which pertain to the sort of activity documented in REED and Malone Society volumes. Abigail Ann Young, Research Associate Records of Early English Drama REED@UTOREPAS or REED@VM.EPAS.UTORONTO.CA The REED-L List itself is , but to subscribe please send the following command: TELL LISTSERV@utoronto SUB REED-L your name. Anything sent to will be echoed to the entire group; anything sent to will reach the editor. This file is available on the SHAKSPER Fileserver as REED-L ANNOUNCE. (2) --------------------------------------------------------------47---- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 16:16:38 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Early Music Bitnet Discussion Group Early Music Redistribution List (Early Music Redistribution) Editor: GONTER@AWIWUW11 (Gerhard Gonter) As stated in the announcement, this list is provisorially hosted at VW5EARN@AWIWUW11.BITNET, until we find a better distribution facility. This list is not a LISTSERV discussion group, which has pros and cons. cons: * fewer distribution features * no online database * no automatic handling of administrative requests pros: * full fledged natural language interface to handle your requests * editor to help you, if necessary Please send your contributions *and* requests to VW5EARN@AWIWUW11.BITNET Why did I write `proposal' in the announcement? Well ... some people argued, that there is not much interest in this topic at all. On the other hand, the number of subscribers is almost hitting the mark of 50 right now. List of Topics: Anything about EARLY MUSIC (medieval, renaissance etc.) including discussions/comments/questions about a) (new) records b) books c) performances d) song texts & translations e) encoding early music scores in electronic form f) concert/festival announcements etc... To become a member of the Early Music Discussion Group, send a subscription query to . This file is available as MUSIC ANNOUNCE on the SHAKSPER Fileserver. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fileserver Procedures: SHAKSPEReans can retrieve files or logbooks from the SHAKSPER Fileserver by issuing the interactive command, "TELL LISTSERV AT UTORONTO GET fname ftype SHAKSPER". If your network link does not support the interactive "TELL" command, or if Listserv rejects your request, then send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@utoronto, reading "GET fname ftype SHAKSPER". For a complete list of files available, send the command "GET SHAKSPER FILES SHAKSPER" to obtain an annotated index. (Note that the "INDEX SHAKSPER" and "GET FILELIST SHAKSPER" commands will result in an *un*annotated list generated automatically by Listserv. These lists include size information, but are less legible to human eyes.) For further information, consult the appropriate section of your SHAKSPER GUIDE, or contact the editor, or . ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 16:47:01 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0128 More Errors in ETC Riverside Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 128. Thursday, 29 Nov 1990. Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 16:44:05 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: More Errors in the ETC Riverside Shakespeare As many of you may already know, the file RIVERSID ERRORS on the SHAKSPER Fileserver contains a listing of errors I have found in the Electronic Text Corporation WordCruncher Riverside Shakespeare. This is the first addendum to the file, consisting of eight cases of mistaken punctuation: in every case, two commas have been substituted for quotation marks. (And in one case, the speech prefix has been truly garbled as a result). I ask you all once more to report any errors you may find in the Riverside Shakespeare text, so that they can be added to the RIVERSID ERRORS file on the SHAKSPER Fileserver. Naturally, any errors found in that list should also be reported to me. Ken Steele University of Toronto |L43 I trust you not, <"Hic steterat Priami,',> take (Taming of The Shrew 3.1:43) |L343 She is curst.,, (Two Gentlemen of Ver 3.1:343) [Note that here, even the speech prefix identification has been garbled.] |L21 cur is that?" says another. "Whip him out,', says (Two Gentlemen of Ver 4.4:21) |L20 And world's exile is death; then "banished,, (Romeo and Juliet 3.3:20) |L19 "Call me not fool till heaven hath sent me fortune.,, (As You Like It 2.7:19) |L113 "In her excellent white bosom, these, etc.,, (Hamlet 2.2:113) |L97 For such a guest is meet.,, <[Throws up another skull.]> (Hamlet 5.1:97) |L162 hair is my father, and all the rest are his sons.,, (Troilus & Cressida 1.2:162) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 19:05:48 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0129 Queries: Weeping Deer? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 129. Friday, 30 Nov 1990. (1) Date: 30 November 1990, 07:39:21 EST (14 lines) From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: weeping deer (2) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 18:22:01 EST (55 lines) From: Ken Steele Subject: Weeping Deer (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 November 1990, 07:39:21 EST From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: weeping deer In Act II, Scene i of *As You Like It*, an anonymous lord describes seeing Jaques who himself is observing a deer wounded by hunters, weeping into a stream. Jaques moralizes and even politicises the event, saying to the herd that fled their wounded companion "Sweep on, you fat and greasy citizens." But what I and my students worried about was how the deer could cry. Shakespeare, though he seems to observe Jaques as a melancholy moralist skeptically, lets the weeping deer pass as a natural possibility. What gave Shakespeare the idea that a wounded deer could cry enough tears to "augment" a stream? Roy Flannagan (2) --------------------------------------------------------------60---- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 18:22:01 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Weeping Deer Several years ago I noticed that Shakespeare mentions weeping deer only twice (to my knowledge), in *As You Like It* and in *Hamlet*. A survey of occurrences of the words deer, hart, hind, doe, etc. in proximity to tear, cry, weep, etc. produces only these three examples in the Riverside Shakespeare (WordCruncher version): As You Like It 2.1:47 <1. Lord.> O yes, into a thousand similes. First, for his weeping into the needless stream: "Poor deer," quoth he, "thou mak'st a testament As worldlings do, giving thy sum of more To that which had too [much]." Then being there As You Like It 2.1:66 And did you leave him in this contemplation? <2. Lord.> We did, my lord, weeping and commenting Upon the sobbing deer. Show me the place. I love to cope him in these sullen fits, Hamlet 3.2:271 Lights, lights, lights! "Why, let the strooken deer go weep, The hart ungalled play, For some must watch while some Not only are these plays chronological neighbours, but I would argue that they have many other similarities as well: usurping brothers, an on-stage duel or physical contest, Hamlet's and Jaques' melancholies, the descriptions of the conventional stricken lover (by Ophelia and by Rosalind), the metatheatrical focus (the players at Elsinore and Jaques' "All the world's a stage" speech, for example), and even the similarity between "play false strains upon thee" (AYLI 4.3.68) and "play upon me" (Hamlet 3.2.364). Like RJ and MSND, these are two plays which work out very similar materials in different genres, I think, and enlighten each other greatly. Has anyone noticed other paired plays like this in Shakespeare? I thought I had encountered an article or book on weeping deer, in fact, but can't find the reference right now. Does anyone have any recollection of it? Perhaps the scope was wider than just Shakespeare.... One explanation, at least, for the proverbial association of deer and tears is that the shape of a deer's eye, with a tear duct (or something) almost swollen at the front edge, does indeed look like a tear swelling in its eye. Any more reasoned explanations? Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 19:17:10 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0130 Rare Books Bitnet Seminar Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 130. Friday, 30 Nov 1990. Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 19:07:10 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Ex Libris Rare Book Discussion Group [Yet another Bitnet discussion group which might interest members of SHAKSPER has recently been brought to my attention by Roy Flannagan. The complete version of this announcement is available on the SHAKSPER Fileserver as EXLIBRIS ANNOUNCE, in the Related Bitnet Conferences Area. KS] Announcing ExLibris, the Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Electronic Discussion Group ExLibris is an unmoderated news and discussion group for the purpose of discussing matters related to rare book and manuscript librarianship, including special collections and related issues. Membership is open to anyone who wishes to subscribe. The contents are archived and will be printed off at a future date for hard-copy donation to an appropriate collection. The full membership will be circulated from time to time unless objections are heard. Feel free to forward this message to those who might be interested in joining the discussions. Please direct questions (but not subscriptions to . Thank you and enjoy yourselves. You may subscribe by sending a message to: . (do NOT send such messages directly to the ExLibris list or to this author) with a subject indicating subscription request ("Subscription request" would do just fine) and a text which gives your name and electronic address. Give the address in as full a form as you can (i.e. include the domain), e.g. Firstname J. Lastname eaddress@node.domain.edu OR Firstname J. Lastname eaddress@nodename.bitnet etc. etc. Peter Graham, Rutgers U., (908) 932-2741 Rutgers -- The State University of New Jersey. Fax: (908) 932-5539 504 Hill Center / Piscataway, N. J. 08855 - 1179 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 90 20:21:27 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0131 Weeping Deer (Continued) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 131. Saturday, 1 Dec 1990. (1) Date: 1 December 1990, 09:46:05 EST (12 lines) From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: Weeping Deer (2) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 90 10:20:00 EST (8 lines) From: Subject: Re: SHK 1.0129 Queries: Weeping Deer? (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 December 1990, 09:46:05 EST From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: Weeping Deer So the deer is like the pelican who punctures its breast to feed its young its heart's blood. The weeping, wounded deer, then, is an emblem of grief that Shakespeare had seen somewhere? Shakespeare uses the phrase "strocken deer" in *Julius Caesar* 3.1.209: perhaps as a poacher he thought of deer only as wounded? But are we talking about something that it was thought possible to observe in nature, or an emblem? Roy Flannagan, for all the bleeding dear hearts (or deer hearts, or dear harts) (2) --------------------------------------------------------------21---- Date: Sat, 1 Dec 90 10:20:00 EST From: Subject: Re: SHK 1.0129 Queries: Weeping Deer? Perhaps you might find some parallels in emblem literature. Don't forget that wounded deer also seek out dittany, which has the power to heal wounds... -Kevin Berland ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 90 20:22:30 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0132 Shakespearean Gardens / Bibliography Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 132. Saturday, 1 Dec 1990. Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 18:24:25 PST From: katy@Eng.Sun.COM (Katy Dickinson) Subject: Shakespeare Garden Books As my initial posting to this group, I would like to share with you my enthusiasm for Shakespeare gardens and garden books. Books about Shakespeare gardens or plants are delightful to me not only because they are interesting in content but also because they are often beautifully illustrated. I have been collecting these books for some years. (During the recent Shakespeare Symposium at the University of San Francisco, the Gleeson Library used some of my books and other Shakespeare memorabilia - such as busts, cups, games, and artwork - in their lobby display areas.) In my bibliography below, I have put ** by those books or booklets I actually possess. The other materials I only know by reference. Shakespeare gardens can be: gardens inspired by ideas or settings in Shakespeare gardens such as Shakespeare himself might have known or (more usually) gardens largely made up of plants mentioned in Shakespeare's works. There are (of course) great debates on the identities of some of the plants since Shakespeare's names for them may not still be in use or may refer to a variety or family of plants. The Putnam book (FLOWERS AND TREES OF TUDOR ENGLAND) has been helpful to me in this area since it shows labelled illustrations from the Tudor period of the plants and trees. I have tried planting a Shakespeare garden and found that it would be almost impossible to grow all of the plants in one place not just because of their large number but also because Shakespeare mentioned plants from many climactic areas which do not readily grow together. Here in the Bay Area, I have been very successful with some of the flowers from bulbs (with the notable exception of the Crown Imperial which refuses to grow for me), fruit trees, herbs, marigolds, roses, daisies, ivy and, of course, LOTS of weeds. The Damrosch book listed below is a practical guide on how to set up such a garden. I have visited three Shakespeare Gardens: 1) The one in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park is hardly worth the effort to visit except to see the monument (which is partially locked under metal plates anyway). The flower beds are often not Shakespeare plants but many of the bushes and trees are. It is not well kept up. 2) The Huntington Library's in San Marino, California is pleasant and very formal (we are going back for a second look this Christmas). It is well maintained and has lots of appropriate flower beds. Two of the entries below are about this garden. 3) The herb garden at the Anne Hathaway cottage in Stratford, England is very pretty. I visited it before I became interested in the subject of Shakespeare gardens but, as I recall, it is a general herb garden of the period rather than made up exclusively of plants mentioned by Shakespeare. Fox's book listed below is about it. If you know of other books in this area or of other Shakespeare gardens, I would love to hear of them. I am particularly interested in whether the ones in Evanston Illinois and in the Brooklyn Botanic Garden described in the books below are still there (and, if so, what they are like). Rsvp. Many thanks, Katy Dickinson Palo Alto, California ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o Beisley, Sidney SHAKESPEARE'S GARDENS (1864: Longmans Green, London) ** Bloom, J, Harvey SHAKESPEARE'S GARDEN (1903: J.B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia and London) ** Carter, Annie Burnham SHAKESPEARE GARDENS / DESIGN, PLANTS, AND FLOWER LORE (1937: Dorrance and Company Publishers, Philadelphia) Chamberlain, Lucy and Stephen Tim WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE THROUGH HIS GARDENS AND PLANTS (1981: Brooklyn Botanic Garden, New York) ** Crane, Walter FLOWERS FROM SHAKESPEARE'S GARDEN / A POSY FROM THE PLAYS (1980: Studio Vista, a division of Cassell Ltd., Great Britain) reprint of the 1906 edition ** Damrosch, Barbara THEME GARDENS (1982: A Regina Ryan Book/ Workman Publishing, New York) Illustrations by Karl W. Stuecklen ** de Bray, Lys FANTASTIC GARLANDS / AN ANTHOLOGY OF FLOWERS AND PLANTS FROM SHAKESPEARE (1982: Blandford Press, Poole, Dorset) Dent, Alan WORLD OF SHAKESPEARE: PLANTS (1973: Taplinger Publishing, New York) ** Ellacombe, Henry N. THE PLANT-LORE AND GARDEN-CRAFT OF SHAKESPEARE (1896: Edward Arnold, London and New York) New Edition Illustrated ** Eyler, Ellen C. "Early English Gardens and Garden Books" (1979: Folger Books, The Folger Shakespeare Library, U.S.A.) ** Fox, Levi "The Shakespeare Gardens" (1966: Jarrold & Sons Ltd, Norwich, in Association with the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust) ** "Garden Notes A Collection of Essays About the Huntington Botanical Gardens Reprinted from the Huntington Calendar" (1978: The Huntington Library, San Marino, California) Grindon, Leopold Hartley SHAKESPERE FLORA (1883: Palmer & Howe, Manchester) ** Hunt, Doris THE FLOWERS OF SHAKESPEARE (1980: Webb & Bower, Exeter, England) Forward by Flora Robson ** Hubbart, Edith "America's First Shakespeare Garden" (1935: Evanston, Ill.) ** Kerr, Jessica SHAKESPEARE'S FLOWERS (1969: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York) Illustrated by Anne Ophelia Dowden ** Law, Ernest SHAKESPEARE'S GARDEN / STRATFORD-UPON-AVON (1922: Selwyn & Blount, Ltd., London) Prince, Martha "Shakespearean Bouquet" AMERICAN HORTICULTURALIST v. 64 #4 April 1985 ** Putnam, Clare FLOWERS AND TREES OF TUDOR ENGLAND (1972: New York Graphic Society Ltd., Greenwich, Connecticut) Introduction by W.O. Hassall ** Rendall, Vernon WILD FLOWERS IN LITERATURE (1934: The Scholartis Press, London) ** Rhode, Eleanour Sinclair SHAKESPEARE'S WILD FLOWERS / FAIRY LORE, GARDENS, HERBS, GATHERERS OF SIMPLES AND BEE LORE (1935: The Medici Society Ltd., London) ** Ryden, Mats SHAKESPEAREAN PLAN NAMES / IDENTIFICATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS (1978:Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm, Sweden) Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis / Stockholm Studies in English XLIII ** Savage, F.G. THE FLORA & FOLK LORE OF SHAKESPEARE (1923: Ed. J. Burrow & Co. Ltd., Cheltenham and London) ** Singleton, Esther THE SHAKESPEARE GARDEN (1931: William Farquhar Payson, New York) ** Thorpe, James "William Shakespeare at the Huntington" (1977: The Huntington Library, San Marino, California) Towne, Rosa M. "Plant-Lore of Shakespeare" (1974: Frame House Gallery, Harvard University) prospectus for a color plate issue inspired by Ellacombe's THE PLANT-LORE AND GARDEN-CRAFT OF SHAKESPEARE [listed above] ** Warner, James A. and Margaret J. White, Photographers, SHAKESPEARE'S FLOWERS (1987: Middle Atlantic Press, Wilmington, Delaware) ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ ~. .~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Dec 90 18:20:30 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0133 Weeping Deer (Continued) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 133. Sunday, 2 Dec 1990. (1) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 90 07:40 CST (10 lines) From: Subject: Weeping Deer Not Natural (2) Date: 2 December 1990, 10:16:21 EST (14 lines) From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: Weeping Deer (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 2 Dec 90 07:40 CST From: Subject: Weeping Deer Not Natural The local biologists assure me that deer have no tear glands and are incapable of weeping. If not the emblem literature, perhaps the answer lies in a contemporary bestiary or book of venery. Judy Boss (2) --------------------------------------------------------------16---- Date: 2 December 1990, 10:16:21 EST From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB Subject: Weeping Deer At the risk of answering my own question, I found a reference to stricken deer in, of all people, William Cowper, as used by Paul Korshin in *Typologies in England* (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1982): 360. "The deer or hart is a traditional type of Christ; authors of bestiaries and commentators on texts which mention the hart, especially Psalms 42.1 [quotation omitted], had first made the association in patristic times." Korshin cites a book I should have looked at before I opened my mouth, Beryl Rowland, *Animals with Human Faces*, but I still haven't looked that up. Anybody know it well? Roy Flannagan ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Dec 90 18:21:11 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0134 Shakespearean Gardens Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 134. Sunday, 2 Dec 1990. Date: Sun, 2 Dec 90 10:23:37 EST From: steve Subject: Re: SHK 1.0132 Shakespearean Gardens / Bibliography Ah, gardens! The Brooklyn Botanical Garden's Shgarden sits happily in warm sunlight, sheltered even in midwinter. And there is also a beleaguered but handsome Shakespearean garden in the hill just south of the Delacort Theatre in Central Park. The Cloisters' gardens, though purpose-built earlier that the Renaissance, grow profusions of things Shakespeare must have smiled at. Hey, for a dirty old town, we do our flowers proud. Steve Urkowitz, City College of New York ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 17:44:14 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0135 More Very Sad Deer Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 135. Monday, 3 Dec 1990. Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 09:12 EST From: Jim Wilderotter -- Georgetown Center for Text and Subject: Weeping Deer... I believe if you look in Old English poetry and literature, you will find that the deer is used to symbolize Christ. This is especially true when the scene includes a hunter. As people with a background in OE poetry and literature know, the hunter is usually wearing green, which (at that time) symbolized the Devil (see also, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight). Jim Wilderotter ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 23:01:15 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0136 Season's Silence... Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 136. Monday, 10 Dec 1990. Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 22:54:29 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Season's Silence? Dear Fellow SHAKSPEReans; This is just a note to let you know that you're all still connected to SHAKSPER, and that nothing drastic has happened (at least, nothing drastic that isn't to be expected at this time of year). I for one have been buried in marking, so I haven't been prompting discussion in my usual tireless way, and I suspect that many others are swamped with seasonal and holiday preparations, end-of-term grading, and/or exams, etc. You are all still, as always, more than welcome to begin discussion on any Shakespearean matter that comes to mind. Once I've recovered a little something may even come to *my* mind. Members who may have been considering temporary suspension of SHAKSPER mailings for vacation or holiday may take the recent silence as indicative that your mailbox is unlikely to be flooded over the holiday season. :-) Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Dec 90 16:46:03 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0137 [was 1.137] Florizel's Dress Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 137. Thursday, 13 Dec 1990. Date: Thu, 13 Dec 90 12:51:45 CST From: "Me (Beth Christopher)" Subject: Florizel's Dress in _The Winter's Tale_ We were discussing in my Shakespeare class _The Winter's Tale_ and we noticed that in Act 4, Scene 4 there is some confusion as to what Florizel is wearing. It the begining of the act he is disguised as a shepherd, but later, after he has exchanged clothes with Autolycus, everyone's favorite pick-pocket, Autolycus describes the clothes as those of a courtier. I could not find any other reference to "changing" clothes except where the King "Discovers himself". Is Autolycus playing up the simple clothes that Florizel was wearing as a shepherd, when he says "I am a courtier, Seest thou not the air of the court in these enfoldings?"(4.4.730-1), or has Florizel changed clothes somewhere? I have not seen this done on stage; are there different ways of doing it? Any help would be greatly thanked. Not to mention that I would look good in class knowing the answer :) Beth Christopher C464497@UMCVMB.BITNET C464497@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.BITNET ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 12:20:37 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0138 New Linguistics Discussion Group Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 138. Saturday, 15 Dec 1990. Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 04:09:37 EST From: Anthony Aristar Subject: Linguistics List [I reproduce this announcement from the ANSAX-L Discussion Group, because I think it might interest members of SHAKSPER as well. KS] ANNOUNCING A NEW LIST LINGUIST@UNIWA.UWA.OZ.AU A new list has been formed, which will serve as a place of discussion for those issues which concern the academic discipline of linguistics and related fields. The list is international in orientation, and hopes to provide a forum for the community of linguists as they exist in different countries. Though the list is moderated, and all submissions are subject to editorial discretion, it has no areal, ideological or theoretical bent, and discussion of any linguistic subfield are welcomed. Membership of the list is open to all. To subscribe to this list, please send a message to LINGUIST-REQUEST@UNIWA.UWA.OZ.AU containing as its first and only line the following: SUBSCRIBE LINGUIST Any other questions may be directed to: LINGUIST-EDITORS@UNIWA.UWA.OZ.AU ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 00:22:04 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0139 Twelfth Night Feast in Ottawa Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 139. Wednesday, 19 Dec 1990. Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 17:48:05 EST From: Peter Jones Subject: 12th night feast on Jan 5 in Ottawa People planning to be in the vicinity of Ottawa on January 5 1991 may be interested in a 16th-century Renaissance feast, organised by the Twelth Night Society, recreating the court of Elizabeth I. More information is available at (613)-233-1319. "A Kleenex in the hand is worth two in the box" Peter Jones (514)-987-3542 Internet:Peter Jones UUCP: ...psuvax1!uqam.bitnet!maint ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 00:23:04 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0140 Season's Greetings Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 140. Wednesday, 19 Dec 1990. Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 00:01:34 EST From: Ken Steele Subject: Season's Greetings Dear Fellow SHAKSPEReans; As I suspect I have already suggested, the annual exam / essay crunch has hit, and discussion on SHAKSPER, like that on REED-L, has suddenly ground to a halt in response to increased marking responsibilities, studying preparation, and/or preparations for seasonal festivities. I myself just barely surfaced above a flood of undergraduate essays, only to be awash in waves of greeting cards, gift shopping, and babysitting. Discussion on SHAKSPER will unfortunately be halted between December 20th and 28th, as I will be away from my terminal (and the EPAS and ListServ facilities at Toronto will be operating unattended, which may mean that they will be inoperating unattended). If anyone has any messages they wish to transmit before this protracted hiatus, please submit them today. As always, my apologies to anyone this may inconvenience or disappoint, in particular our new members who have seen SHAKSPER only in its most silent mode. I will do my best to stimulate further discussion once we have all recovered from term end and/or the holidays. I would also like to take this opportunity to wish each and every one of you a truly joyous holiday season, whether Christmas, Hanukkah, or simply the semester break. Also best wishes for a happy, healthy, and productive New Year! See you in a week. Ken Steele University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 18:55:20 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0141 Florizel's Dress (Cont'd) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 141. Wednesday, 19 Dec 1990. Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 13:21:03 From: "R.J.C. Watt" Subject: Florizel's dress Beth Christopher asks why Florizel's dress appears to change from that of a shepherd to that of a courtier sometime in the course of _The Winter's Tale_ IV.iv. A good enough answer is to be found in Pafford's note to IV.iv.1 on p. 89 of his Arden edition of the play. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Dec 90 22:00:30 EST Reply-To: Ken Steele Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 1.0142 Globe Theatre Site Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 142. Thursday, 27 Dec 1990. Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 10:51 EST From: Subject: Globe archeology I have just had a letter from Andrew Gurr, of the University of Reading. He is the principal academic consultant to the Rose and Globe digs. His letter appeals for mail to be sent to the Secretary of State for the Environment and the head of English Heritage on behalf of the Globe dig. His letter is too long to type here in full, but the gyst of it is that the government is planning to put the Globe dig on hold for twenty- five years. Apparently this plan is not yet policy, and time remains to influence the decision. Hence Gurr's appeal for letters. If you believe the dig is important enough to proceed with at once, and if you are in- clined to write two letters, please address them to: Michael Heseltine Secretary of State for the Environment c/o Heritage Division Department of the Environment 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 3EB Dr. Geoffrey Wainwright English Heritage Fortress House 23 Savile Row London W1X 2HE Incidentally, I wrote to inform Andrew Gurr of the existence of SHAKSPER and to suggest that he subscribe to it, so he could issue future letter requests by means of it. Season's greetings (even if they come after Ken's hiatus), John D. Cox