1993

Re: Masques

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 898.  Sunday, 5 December 1993.
 
(1)     From:   Roy Flannagan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 4 December 93, 09:57:00 EST
        Subj:   Masques
 
(2)     From:   Georgianna Ziegler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 04 Dec 1993 13:25:43 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0896  Q: Masques
 
(3)     From:   A.G. Bennett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 4 Dec 1993 13:36 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0896  Q: Masques
 
(4)     From:   Stephen Orgel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 4 Dec 1993 17:24:34 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0896  Q: Masques
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roy Flannagan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 4 December 93, 09:57:00 EST
Subject:        Masques
 
On unambiguous masques: if Stephen Orgel is listening, he can remember
for us where he modified some of his earlier opinions, in an an article
he wrote about 1991?  David Norbrook has also written very capably on
the political subtexts of masques, as in his essay "The reformation of
the masque," in {The Court Masque}, ed. David Lindley (Manchester:
Manchester UP, 1984).  Roy Flannagan, Ohio University
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Georgianna Ziegler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 04 Dec 1993 13:25:43 -0500
Subject: 4.0896  Q: Masques
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0896  Q: Masques
 
For at least one other non-Orgelian discussion of Jonson's masques,
see the article by Marion Wynne-Davies, "The Queen's Masque: Renaissance
Women and the Seventeenth-Century Court Masque," in GLORIANA's FACE...
ed. Wynne-Davies and Cerasano (Harvester, 1992).
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           A.G. Bennett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 4 Dec 1993 13:36 EDT
Subject: 4.0896  Q: Masques
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0896  Q: Masques
 
Dear James McKenna:
 
Barbara Keifer Lewalski's latest book, _Writing Women in Jacobean England_
(1993) has some interesting things to say about Jonson's masques and the roles
James' queen, Anne, played in them-- both as a participant in performance and
behind the scenes in commissioning works. Although the logical inference here
is still that the masques supported the institution of monarchy, Lewalski
does some interesting things with the contention that Anne "foster[ed]
cultural myths and practices which enhanced her own dignity and power." The
masques may have been pro-monarchical, but they didn't have to be pro
patriarchy, seems to be the point.
 
Just a thought....
 
Alex Bennett (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephen Orgel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 4 Dec 1993 17:24:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 4.0896  Q: Masques
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0896  Q: Masques
 
C'mon now, I don't believe I ever claimed that masques were unambiguous.
On the contrary, my argument in the last chapter of INIGO JONES was
that, like most symbolic forms, they meant what the observer wanted
them to mean. But anyway, times have changed--big Inigo was written
in 1972; so David Norbrook argues that the masque is always an
adversarial form--this strikes me as overstated, but on the right
track. You could also look at a recent piece of mine on OBERON in
a collection called SOLICITING INTERPRETATION, edd. K. Maus and E.
Harvey. There are many essays on the subject in a volume edited
by David Lindley, the title of which I forget. The most startling
work on the doubleness of Jonson's masques is Dale Randall's book
on The Gipsies Metamorphosed.
 
What we, as modern literary critics, tend not to take seriously in
a form like the masque is the realities of the patronage system, and
we tend to think that writing to the order of a patron is a violation
of the artist's integrity (whereas, eg, writing something a publisher
will buy because it will sell isn't). But that's an anachronistic
notion of artistic integrity; when Jonson told Drummond he wouldn't
flatter though he saw death, he wasn't being disingenuous; he didn't
think of himself as flattering the king. What he was doing was as
old as Horace and Virgil: laudando praecipere.
 
Nuff. Next person who compares me to Tillyard gets a custard pie
in the kisser.
 
S. Orgel

Renaissance Manuscript Culture

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 897.  Saturday, 4 December 1993.
 
From:           James McKenna <MCKENNJI@UCBEH>
Date:           Friday, 03 Dec 1993 22:17:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Renaissance manuscript culture
 
Dear All,
 
In digging for information about Gascoigne's use and misuse of manuscript
conventions in _Master F. J._, I found much on Gascoigne and and quite a bit on
_F. J._, and, so far, nothing on the structure of circulating manuscripts.  Has
anyone done any work on this?  What I'm interested in is analysis of audience
expectations and some general idea of what _really_ circulated in the late
sixteenth century.
 
I'm looking for more than the commonplaces distinguishing
aristocratic writing from commercial writing.  Daniel Javitch has an
interesting article (_Genre_ 15(2-3): "The Impure Motives of Elizabethan
Poetry") that claims that Elizabethan poetry is about self-advertising and
rhetorical ability ("I can make anything look like anything else, so hire me to
write your speeches").  That really has me wondereing what was in those
manuscripts in terms of marginalia and commentary.  Did any responses get
recorded in manuscripts?  What sort of works got grouped together _in
manuscript_, not in imprinted miscellanies.
 
If you've got any ideas or have seen some somewhere, write to me on the list or
privately.
 
Thanks,
 
James McKenna
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: Spinoffs; Death; Pantos

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 895.  Saturday, 4 December 1993.
 
(1)     From:   Chris Kendall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 3 Dec 1993 15:06:43 -0700 (MST)
        Subj:   Shakespeare spinoffs
 
(2)     From:   Laura White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 03 Dec 1993 21:58:47 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0888  Spinoffs
 
(3)     From:   John Gouws <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 3 Dec 1993 22:31:00 +0200 (EET)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0887  Re: Death in *Hamlet* and *Julius Caesar*
 
(4)     From:   William Godshallk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 03 Dec 1993 21:47:37 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0884  Q: Pantomime
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris Kendall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 3 Dec 1993 15:06:43 -0700 (MST)
Subject:        Shakespeare spinoffs
 
If you're including works about Shakespeare himself you might look at
William Gibson's play "A Cry of Players", loosely based on speculation about
WS's early years.
 
Chris Kendall                 | This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Laura White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 03 Dec 1993 21:58:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 4.0888  Spinoffs
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0888  Spinoffs
 
Thanks so much for all the Spinoff help, List members.  I'm saving everyone's
suggestions!         Laurie White (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Gouws <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 3 Dec 1993 22:31:00 +0200 (EET)
Subject: 4.0887  Re: Death in *Hamlet* and *Julius Caesar*
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0887  Re: Death in *Hamlet* and *Julius Caesar*
 
An obvious source to consult on death and Hamlet is Roland Mushat Frye,
_The Renaissance Hamlet: Issues and Responses in 1600_ (Princeton,
1984).  Coals to Newscastle, no doubt.
 
     John Gouws - Department of English - Rhodes University
     P.O. Box 94 - Grahamstown 6140 - South Africa
   Internet: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  Telephone: (0461) 318402 or 318400
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshallk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 03 Dec 1993 21:47:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 4.0884  Q: Pantomime
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0884  Q: Pantomime
 
Dear Denis Knowles,
 
The Ensemble Theatre of Cincinnati (ETC) puts on a English-type panto each
holiday season. This year, it's LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD. You might call them
(513-421-3556) for more information. My kids love the panto.
 
Bill Godshalk

Q: Masques

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 896.  Saturday, 4 December 1993.
 
From:           James McKenna <MCKENNJI@UCBEH>
Date:           Friday, 03 Dec 1993 21:48:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Query about masques
 
Dear Everybody,
 
I'm doing some work on Jonson's masques with Inigo Jones, the early ones in
particular, and I'm finding lots by Stephen Orgel, and not much by anyone else.
This is okay, since Orgel's analysis is beautiful, but I'm finding what looks
like a circularity in Orgel's arguments about the masques, and I'd like to see
what some other minds have thought.
 
The problem I've encountered is that Orgel neatly defines away ambiguity in the
masques by claiming that they a priori support and justify the monarchy.  But
what is Jonson doing writing these flat praises for James and the monarchy at
the same time he is utterly deflating every other human pretension?  I begin to
hear echoes of Tillyard in his argument as it expands.  That's not bad in
itself, but I thought our ideas had gotten dicier since Tillyard.
 
Ben Jonson wrote a _lot_ of masques at the same time he was
writing his plays.  His poetry is a little easier to justify with the plays
because of its famous ambiguity.  The masques, however, _appear_ to be
unambiguous, just like Orgel says they are.  What do we do with a guy who
writes _Epicoene_ and _The Masque of Queens_ in the same year (1609)?  As Orgel
points out, masque "is the opposite of satire."
 
I can think of some ways to fit all this together, but it's so weird that I'd
love to see what someone else thinks.  If you've got any ideas or have seen
some somewhere, write me on the list or privately.
 
Thanks,
 
James McKenna
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Euonyms

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 894.  Saturday, 4 December 1993.
 
From:           Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 03 Dec 93 11:27:27 EST
Subject:        Euonyms
 
This morning I puzzled over a description in the Atlanta _Journal-Constitution_
that said a gardener had used "yellow, euonymous, gold-splashed aucuba leaves"
(Sect. C, p. 1).  And when I pick up my e-mail, SHAKSPER provides me with an
explanation of "euonym."   I think the journalist believes "aucuba" is somehow
cognate with "aurum," but since I'm not turning "aucuba" up in my desk
dictionary I'll have to keep puzzling over it.  Whether "euonymous" was chosen
in error or not, I appreciate the serendipity of having a working definition!

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.