1992

Erasmus Lecture for 1992

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 3, No. 304. Friday, 6 November 1992.
 
From:		Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Friday, Nov. 6, 1992
Subject:	Erasmus Lecture for 1992
 
[This announcement appeared on FICINO.  --hmc]
 
The Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies announces the
annual Erasmus Lecture for 1992.  Our distinguished lecturer will be
Paul Grendler, Professor of History at the University of Toronto and
currently President of the Renaissance Society of America, speaking on "The
Universities of Renaissance Italy."  The lecure will take place
on Thursday, November 12, in Alumni Hall, Old Vic building, at Victoria
University in the University of Toronto. Tea will be available at 4.00, and
the lecture will begin at 4.30. All those interested in the Toronto, Southern
Ontario, and Northern United States are warmly invited to attend.

Chaucer List

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 3, No. 303. Friday, 6 November 1992.
 
From:		Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Friday, Nov. 6, 1992
Subject:	Chaucer List
 
I believe some of you might be interested in a new BITNET discussion list
for medieval literature, CHAUCER@SIUCVMB   (internet address:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.).  This is non-peered discussion list open to
all BITNET / INTERNET users.  To subscribe send a SUB command to
the LISTERV at SIUCVMB.  Thanks.
 
Jeff Taylor  (GR4302@SIUCVMB).

Rs: Doubling

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 3, No. 301. Wednesday, 4 November 1992.
 
(1)	From: 	Robert F. O'Connor <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Wednesday, Nov. 4, 1992, 15:02:05 EST
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 3.0291 R: Doubling Claudius and Ghost
 
(2)	From: 	Todd Lidht <LIDHT@GUVM>
	Date: 	Wednesday, Nov. 4, 1992, 10:01:09 EST
	Subj: 	Doubling (sort of)
 
(3)	From: 	Jay L Halio <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Wednesday, Nov. 4, 1992, 14:15:31 -0500 (EST)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 3.0298 More Rs: Doubling Claudius and Ghost
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
From: 		Robert F. O'Connor <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, Nov. 4, 1992, 15:02:05 EST
Subject: 3.0291 R: Doubling Claudius and Ghost
Comment: 	Re: SHK 3.0291 R: Doubling Claudius and Ghost
 
One 'doubling' I have seen in three separate productions of 'Hamlet' is Osric
and Polonius.  I find this interesting as it really brings home the way events
in the first half of the play are mirrored in the second.  I can't help but
feel, however, that doubling Claudius and the Ghost could get confusing, unless
drastic makeup was employed.  A late 1990 production by the Haymarket relied
far more on the ghost as an active force in Elsinore -- he was onstage for
Claudius' death, and, indeed, the way it was staged made him more of an
instrument in it than Hamlet.
 
ROC
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
From: 		Todd Lidht <LIDHT@GUVM>
Date: 		Wednesday, Nov. 4, 1992, 10:01:09 EST
Subject: 	Doubling (sort of)
 
This discussion on the importance (or lack thereof) of doubling reminds me of
a production I was in as an undergraduate. In _She Stoops to Conquer_ there
are quite a few "bit parts" -- servants, bar folk and the like. Toward the end
of the play, there is an extended scene outside in a wooded area.
 
My director chose to have the "bit players," those not actually in the scene
according to the script, double as trees, bushes and rocks. WE were the
forest.
 
As I recall, his justification for doubling sounded similar to many of the
reasons expressed for Claudius/Ghost and other parts. I will forever be
skeptical of the intellectual nature of doubling because of my distinguished
stage career as a lone pine tree, down stage center.
 
                                "It's another 'kick me' sign on
Todd M. Lidh                         the butt that is my life."
Georgetown University                               -- Frank F.
School of Business Administration                  MURPHY BROWN
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
From: 		Jay L Halio <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, Nov. 4, 1992, 14:15:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 3.0298 More Rs: Doubling Claudius and Ghost
Comment: 	Re: SHK 3.0298 More Rs: Doubling Claudius and Ghost
 
Giorgio Melchiori has an important article on doubling in Shakespeare's time by
his company. Sorry, I don't have the reference handy, but it is, I think, not
too long ago. And William Ringler has also written persuasively on the doubling
of Cordelia and the Fool in *Lear*; so has Stephen Booth. I suspect that
doubling for effect (as Melchiori and Booth describe it) was used as often as
doubling by necessity, though doubling the Ghost and Claudius is a new one to
me.
					Jay Halio

CATH 92

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 3, No. 302. Thursday, 5 November 1992.
 
From: 		Stuart Lee <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, Nov. 5, 1992,  12:11 GMT
Subject: 	CATH 92, 15-17 December 1992, Manchester
 
Dear All,
 
I have been asked to post the following around the net advertising the
forthcoming CATH 92 conference. Please reply to the conference address,
not me.  I am merely the bearer of good tidings,
 
Stuart Lee
(Please x-post at will)
*************************************************
 
CATH 92: Teaching With Computers: Experiences and Opportunities
 
15-17 December 1992
Manchester Metropolitan University
 
Following the success of last year's conference Computers and Teaching in the
Humanities 92 will be based around the theme 'Experiences and Opportunities'.
The conference will offer hands-on workshops, a software fair, and sessions
focussing on how computers have been introduced into teaching. Before the start
of the conference (i.e. the 14th and 15th of December) there will be additional
workshops for those with no previous experience of humanities computing.
 
In addition there is a HIDES authoring day to be run after the conference from
the afternoon of the 17th to the morning of the 18th. Details can be obtained
from Mrs B Hudson, HIDES Project, History Department, University of
Southampton, Southampton, SO9 5NH.
 
*********************************************************
CATH 92 Draft Programme
 
Monday 14th December
 
Introductory sessions for those new to computing
 
12.00-1.00 - Registration for introductory sessions
 
12.30-1.30 - Lunch
 
2.00-3.45 - Plenary Session: How to Get Started
 
"What is Hurnanities Computing?" Marilyn Deegan, CTI Centre for Textual
Studies, and Don Spaeth, CTI Centre for History with Archaeology and Art
History
 
"Setting up a Desktop Computing System", Lorraine Warren, University of Hull
 
3.45-4.15 - Tea
 
4.15-6.00  Workshop 1
 
either
 
"Introduction to Textual Computing", Marilyn Deegan and Caroline Davis, CTI
Centre for Textual Studies
 
or
 
"Tools for Foreign Language Handling", June Thompson, CTI Centre for Modern
Languages
 
or
 
"Education, Information, and Networks" Stuart Lee, CTI Centre for Textual
Studies, and Richard Gartner, Bodleian Library
 
7.00 - Dinner
 
Tuesday I5th December (Introductory sessions continued)
 
9.00- 11.00 - Workshop 2
 
either
 
"An Introduction to Relational Databases", Don Spaeth, CTI Centre for History
with Archaeology and Art History
 
or
 
"An Introduction to Hypermedia", Stuart Lee and Nicola Timbrell, CTI Centre for
Textual Studies, and Lorraine Warren, University of Hull
 
or
 
"Courseware in Teaching", Workshop leaders to be announced
 
11.00-11.30 Coffee
 
***************************************************
Tuesday 15th December
 
Start of full conference sessions
 
11.30-12.30 Conference Registration
 
12.30-1.30 Lunch
 
1.45-2.30 - Conference Opening
David Melling, Dean of the Humanities Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University
Dianne Phillips, Director of Social
Information Technology Unit, Manchester Metropolitan University
Opening Address, Speaker to be announced
 
 
2.30-4.00 Session 1: Plenary Methodology for Courseware Development
 
Chair: Brian Shields, National Coordinator, lTII
"Towards the 'Course-Processor'", Harry Lewis, University of Leeds
"IMP Project", Peter Ward, University of Leeds
"Inferface Design", Speaker to be announced
 
 
4.00-4.30 - Tea
 
4.30-6.30 Session 2: Workshops
 
either
 
"Guide", Nicola Timbrell, Jean Anderson, Lorraine Warren
 
or
 
"Literary Text Analysis", Marilyn Deegan, Caroline Davis, CTI Centre for
Textual Studies
 
or
 
"Telematics and Language Learning", Charles Jennings, Centre for Electronic
Communications, Southampton Institute
 
7.00 - Dinner
 
 
Wednesday 16th December
 
9.30-11.00 Session 3: Workshops or Small Groups
 
either
 
"Practical Experiences of Running IT as a Degree Subject and Integrating IT
into Other Courses", North London University
 
or
 
"From CAL to Hypertext", The STELLA Project, University of Glasgow and
Shakespeare's Life and Times, Michael Best, University of Victoria, BC
 
or
 
"Workshop on HyperCard", Stuart Lee and Nicola Timbrell, CTI Centre for Textual
Studies
 
 
11.00-11.30 Coffee
 
11.30-1.00 Session 4: Workshops or Small Groups
 
either
 
"Designing a Database", Don Spaeth, CTI Centre for History with Archaeology and
Art History, University of Glasgow
 
or
 
"Access to Online Resources", Networked Information Services Project (NISP),
Newcastle upon Tyne University
 
or
 
"'Hard Times' in No Time: Humanities Computing for 1000 Students in Six Weeks",
Simon Eliot and Peter Cox, The Open University and "DynaMark", Michael Best,
University of Victoria, BC
 
1.00-2.00	Lunch
 
2.30-4.00	Session 5: Plenary The Use of Electronic Texts
 
Chair: David Robey, University of Manchester
Text Archives, Alan Morrison, Oxford University Computing Services
Electronic Texts in Teaching, Noel Heather, RHBNC
Digitizing and Copyright, Jane Dorner
 
4.00-4.30	Tea
 
4.00 6.00 Software Fair
 
6.00 7.00 Multimedia and Education, Professor Stephen Heppell, Xploratorium,
Anglia Polytechnic University
 
7.30 for 8.00 Conference Dinner
 
 
Thursday 17th December
 
9.00-11.00  Session 6: Workshops
 
either
 
"Microcosm Authoring System", Wendy Hall and Frank Colson, University of
Southampton
 
or
 
"Sound, Text, and Image Capture", Emashe and CTI Centre for
Textual Studies teams
 
or
 
"Linguistic Corpora in Teaching", Stephen Fligelstone,
University of Lancaster
 
11.00 11.30 Coffee
 
11.30-12.45 Session 7: Plenary Course and Courseware Evaluation
 
Chair: Jonathan Darby
Erica McAteer, ITTI Emashe Project, University of Glasgow
Other speakers to be announced
 
12.45-1.00	Concluding remarks
 
1.00	Lunch
 
Close of Conference
 
*****************************************************************************
FEES
 
Accommodation will be in en-suite rooms at the Dominion Hotel or the Manchester
Business School.
 
Conference Fee (including Registration fee, in pounds sterling)
 
14-17 December	Residential    		#230.00
14-17 December 	Non-residential 	#120.00
15-17 December	Residential		#175.00
15-17 December	Non-residential		#105.00
Daily Rate	Residential		#85.00
Daily Rate	Non-residential		#50.00
 
The final date for registration is 4th december 1992
 
Registration forms, and more details are available from:
 
Susan Gianni
CTI Centre for Textual Studies
Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 6NN
Tel:0865-273221
Fax:0865-273221
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
or
 
Mrs Christine Davies
Manchester Metropolitan University
Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences
Room 36, Cavendish Building
Cavendish Street
Manchester M15 6BR
Tel:061-247-1766
Fax:061-247-6308

Hero's Mother Again

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 3, No. 300.  Tuesday, 3 November 1992.
 
From: 		Michael Friedman <FRIEDMAN@SCRANTON>
Date: 		Tuesday, Nov. 3, 1992, 14:20 EST
Subject: 	Hero's Mother
 
Imagine my surprise when, after a few days snowed under by midterms, I check my
e-mail to find that my comment on Hero's mother has created a flurry of
responses.  After reading them all, I'd like to try to get my two cents in.
 
I approached this issue originally from a performance-oriented point of view,
and my interest in the problem was geared towards the modern, rather than the
Elizabethan, stage.  In my textual analysis, I noted what John Drakakis has
expressed so well: "Marriage in this play is (I think ironically) offered as a
form of SILENCING females, and what better way to show this on the stage than
to have a silent woman--Leonato's wife."  The question, then, as I saw it, was
not to determine whether or not Innogen was a part of the text (she undoubtedly
was), but how to use what the text offered to present a coherent comment on the
silencing of women as they became wives in Messina.  In other words, I tried
to answer the question Tad Davis asks, how can her silent appearance in the
play carry the burden of such significance?
 
To answer as best I can, I need to offer a few theories about performance.
First, while it is probably necessary to see the text as "radically unstable,"
performance requires an attempt at stabilizing the text, at least temporarily,
for any given performance.  Innogen cannot be an intention under consideration
on the stage; she's either in the production or she isn't.  A director going
from text to performance also has no choice but to add to the text in giving it
concrete embodiment on the stage.  For example, the way in which Claudio makes
his exit in 4.1 is extremely important to an audience's interpretation of his
character, but the text does not tell us exactly how he leaves the stage; the
director and actor must make a decision about which stage signals will be added
to Shakespeare's written text to create the performed text.  Hence, a
considerable amount of a director's job involves deciding what to add to the
written text and how to choose between the innumerable options.  Now, a
director could simply put on what he or she considers a "straight" production
of *Much Ado* which selects only the most "natural" costumes, lighting, and
stage business, but I  would argue that any such production is actually based
on countless ideological and interpretive assumptions common to that director's
era.  I believe it is more honest and clear-sighted to acknowledge our
ideological assumptions up front and explore the ways they influence
performance choices.
 
Therefore, I consciously assumed a feminist perspective and set about to try
to find a way to employ Innogen to express a point about wives and silence in
the performance of *Much Ado*.  Consulting the history of the play's
performance, I found that a few productions, including Daly's (1896) and
William Hutt's at Stratford, Ontario (1971) had included some version of
Innogen, but there wasn't much information on how she had been deployed.
Eventually, we decided to "add" Innogen into both 4.1 and 5.4, ending the play
with a silent tableau of the married women: Hero, Beatrice, and Innogen.
Responses to a questionnaire given to audience members confirmed that
spectators did connect this moment to the general trend toward the silencing of
female characters as they approach marriage.  Clearly, we overstepped the
written text by inviting Innogen to her own daughter's weddings, but the
question I would put to the network is, given the acknowledged intentions of
our production, did we exceed the bounds of legitimacy by adding that moment
to the text in order to bring out on stage a thematic issue that is
demonstrably present in the written text?
 
It might interest some people to know that some members of our audience were
enraged that we dared to "insert" a silent woman into the cast just to make  a
feminist point.  Whether Shakespeare "intended" the feminist point or not,
however, I think we were hardly guilty of inserting her into the play.
 
While discussing this point with me, Alan Dessen once suggested that
Shakespeare changed his mind during the composition of 2.1 when he realized
that he needed both Margaret and Ursula (note that they have no entry
direction for 2.1 although they speak); once those characters were
established, he contends, Innogen was forgotten, mainly due to the number of
boy actors required.  I think he may well be correct, but expunging her from
the play (which the editors of the Folio chose not to do) seems to close off
valuable possibilities for performance that are not balanced by a significant
gain through leaving her out of the text.
 
As a side note, does anyone have any insight into another "ghost," the
character Violenta listed in the entry directions of 3.5 of *All's Well*?
 
                                                Michael Friedman
                                                Friedman@Scranton

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.