1994

Qs: RSC Summer; D.C. Summer; Malvolio's Soliloquy

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0338.  Saturday, 16 April 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Peter Novak <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 13 Apr 1994 21:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   RSC SUMMER
 
(2)     From:   David M Richman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 14 Apr 1994 17:19:13 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Query to shaksperians in D.C. area
 
(3)     From:   Matthew Vail Smith <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 14 Apr 1994 20:57:32 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Malvolio's soliloquy III.4
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Novak <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 13 Apr 1994 21:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:        RSC SUMMER
 
I'm having a tough time trying to find out what the RSC's summer season is.
Does anyone know what they will be doing from mid-June to September 1st? I will
be in England then and was wondering what Shakespeare I could catch.
 
On a related note, does anyone know of any Shakespeare being produced at the
Edinburgh Festival and what the dates are? I would be much obliged. If y'all
don't think this is interesting enough to go out to everyone, could you send it
to me at this address on internet: IN%"This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it."
 
I would be most appreciative for any replies.
 
Peter Novak
Santa Clara University
Department of Theatre and Dance
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David M Richman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 14 Apr 1994 17:19:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Query to shaksperians in D.C. area
 
My family and I will be visiting the D.C. area from July 17 to 24 or so. I
haven't been to Washington since the '67 march on the Pentagon, which I suppose
dates me. I would be grateful to learn of attractions Shakespearean or
theatrical in D.C. and environs at that time.  Anything running at the Folger
or other theatres? We are up on all the usual D.C. attractions, but a few
theatrical or related tips would be received with gratitude and joy. Please
reply directly to me:
David Richman  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
Many Thanks.
David Richman
University of New Hampshire
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Matthew Vail Smith <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 14 Apr 1994 20:57:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Malvolio's soliloquy III.4
 
How now.  I have to perform Malvolio's soliloquy III.4 ("O ho.  Do you come
near me now? etc...) for a class in a week or so.  I was wondering if any of
y'all out there in 'Shakespeare's electronic globe theatre' might have any
suggestions on how I should do it.
 
It strikes me as if he almost has a split personality:  at once, he is
puritanical and all of the luggage that goes with being a Puritan; he is also
human and he must contend with all of his human want for Olivia despite the
restrictions put upon him by puritanism and by his lower office.
 
Am I anywhere near the bullseye on this, or am I going to perform like a
schmuck?  I hate to drag the puritan schtick into this again, but I realize
that it is somewhat inescapable.
 
By the way, I think it would be cool to do a contemporary production of Twelfth
Night in which Malvolio wears a yellow leisure suit instead of yellow stockings
and a cheesy ascot to replace the cross garters.  If this has been done I would
love to hear about it.
 
Matthew Vail Smith
Hobart College
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: Mousetrap; Plain Dealing; Teaching; *MND*

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0337.  Saturday, 16 April 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Ron Moyers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 13 Apr 1994 14:58:00 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   Mousetrap
 
(2)     From:   Christine Mack Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 14 Apr 1994 10:04:11 -0500
        Subj:   plain dealing
 
(3)     From:   E. L. Epstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 14 Apr 1994 23:04:21 EDT
        Subj:   RE: SHK 5.0335  Re: Plain Dealing
 
(4)     From:   Karla Walters <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 14 Apr 1994 00:18 MST
        Subj:   Ideas for Teaching Shakespeare
 
(5)     From:   Clifford Ronan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 14 Apr 94 00:57:10 EST
        Subj:   Re: Woman as matter, man as form
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ron Moyers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 13 Apr 1994 14:58:00 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:        Mousetrap
 
Rick Jones and Bill Godshalk properly note that Claudius' reaction to a play
depicting a nephew murdering an uncle-king is open to various interpretations.
Additional ambiguity in the script comes with Horatio's rather flat answers
to Hamlet's questions after the King's departure: certainly Horatio must be
acted as clearly agreeing or disagreeing with Hamlet or as confused by the
events (and presumably such a clear choice was made under the author's
tutelage), but the text offers no clarification of Horatio's view.  In my
experience, Hamlet's planning, expectation, and reaction tend to influence
an audience into seeing any reaction by Claudius as guilty, but my 20th-
century eyes see Claudius as being in greater control of his public persona,
and I think an ambiguous or an "innocent" response from him is more interesting
dramatically than an obviously guilty reaction.--Ron Moyer, Theatre, Univ. of
South Dakota
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Christine Mack Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 14 Apr 1994 10:04:11 -0500
Subject:        plain dealing
 
Thanks to Ben Schneider for seeking clarification about my earlier comment. I
would agree that in most cases plain dealing is a good thing; I certainly like
plain dealing villains more than double dealing ones-- something about clarity,
I suppose. But I've also seen (occasionally) plain dealing used as a weapon by
real and fictional people, and then the waters do become a bit more muddy. I
tend to be straightforward to a fault myself, which can lead to trouble in some
situations, but I think that in most cases it's the best option. But I'd hate
to lose the double-dealers in life and literature, however, since they too have
a certain appeal. Greetings to those in Albuquerque, and I hope everyone else
is having as lovely a day as we are here in Minnesota today. --Chris Gordon
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           E. L. Epstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 14 Apr 1994 23:04:21 EDT
Subject: 5.0335  Re: Plain Dealing
Comment:        RE: SHK 5.0335  Re: Plain Dealing
 
Let's be sure that we can distinguish between a plain dealer and a railer. In
fact, isn't the point made explicitly in *Lear*? ELEpstein
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karla Walters <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 14 Apr 1994 00:18 MST
Subject:        Ideas for Teaching Shakespeare
 
This is a response to the request for ideas besides videos and models of the
Globe theater to make Shakespeare come to life for teenage students.  The April
1993 issue of _English Journal_ was devoted to ideas for teaching Shakespeare.
The National Council of Teachers of English has just published a book by James
E. Davis titled _Teaching Shakespeare Today: Practical Approaches and
Productive Strategies_ (1993).
 
At the SAA conference here in Albuquerque, Peggy O'Brien of the Folger
Shakespeare Library gave a presentation on teaching Shakespeare to high school
teachers that was very exciting and got everyone involved.  She initiated us
all into Shakespeare's language by having us do choral readings, antiphonal
readings, successive readings and directing of scenes.  It was fun, lively, and
dramatic and would work wonderfully with high school students.
 
A new book Peggy O'Brien mentioned, that incorporates both scholarship and
teaching ideas generated at the Folger is _Shakespeare Set Free_.
 
I hope this is helpful.  I'd also be interested in some further discussion of
teaching strategies for Shakespeare on this list.
 
Karla Walters
Univ. of New Mexico    This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
[Editor's Note:  We SHAKSPERians have Karla Walters to thank for enabling
me to edit your submissions from Albuquerque.  Thank you Karla.  --HMC]
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clifford Ronan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 14 Apr 94 00:57:10 EST
Subject:        Re: Woman as matter, man as form
 
To: Alan Weber
 
I suppose you will get many replies quoting *MND* I.1, where Theseus over
(?)states the patriarchal tradition descending from the Greeks (cf. Athena
in the *Oresteia*) as he tries to scare her into submitting to
her father's will:
 
To you your father should be as a god;
One that compos'd your beauties; yea, and one
To whom you are but as a form in wax
By him imprinted, and within his power
To leave the figure, or disfigure it.
 
With every hearty wish from charming Krakow,
      Cliff Ronan, Southwest Texas SU/ U of Silesia

Re: Plain Dealing; *Mac.* Anecdotes; The Mousetrap

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0335.  Wednesday, 13 April 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Ben Schneider <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Apr 1994 12:01:40 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   plain dealing
 
(2)     From:   Ron Moyers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Apr 1994 15:37:38 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   *Mac.* Anecdotes
 
(3)     From:   William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Apr 1994 22:10:34 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0330  Re: Plain Dealing; Ophelia
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ben Schneider <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Apr 1994 12:01:40 -0600 (CST)
Subject:        plain dealing
 
Dear Christine Gordon:
 
When you say, speaking of Don John in MAN, that plain dealing "is a tool for
people of all sorts, good bad, and all muddled like most of us," do you mean to
suggest that PDing is not a totally unambiguous virtue?
 
Granted that villains may be plain dealers, and several of Shakespeare's
villains are plain dealers in the same sense as Don John (Iago, Richard III,
Edmund in Lear), does it follow that plain dealing itself is villainous?  For
example compare Goneril&Reagan with Edmund.  The double-dealing sisters tell
themselves that what they are doing is for Lear's own good; plain dealing
Edmund has no such illusions.  He's unambiguously out for himself.
 
Edmund says to himself, if I'm a bastard in birth why not be a "bastard" in
behavior?  "Nature, be thou my Goddess."  He goes about his evil-doing "with
direct eyes" like the un-Hollow Men in Eliot's poem.  He is a man of a superior
intelligence.  Watch him characterize his shilly-shallying father:
 
"This is the excellent foppery of the world, that when we are sick in fortune
-- often the surfeits of our own behavior -- we make guilty of our disasters
the sun, the moon, and stars, as if we were villains on necessity, fools by
heavenly compulsion." (1.2.118-22)
 
No one has a better grasp of what's rotten in England. Isn't it better to be a
clear-eyed villain than a hypocritical rationalizing, self-approving
pragmatist?
 
My point is that Plain-dealing is a good thing even when it's an attribute of
villains.
 
Yours ever,
BEN SCHNEIDER
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ron Moyers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Apr 1994 15:37:38 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:        *Mac.* Anecdotes
 
I seem to recall that the spring 1988, Broadway-bound production of *Mac.*
which starred Glenda Jackson and Christopher Plummer was sufficiently troubled
to exhaust the play's ill luck for some time to come.  I believe a Sunday
NYTimes, ca. March-April '88, has an article detailing the productions's
out-of-town woes--e.g., several directors, various sets, a multitude of
Macduffs, etc.--Ron Moyer, Theatre, Univ. of South Dakota
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Apr 1994 22:10:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0330  Re: Plain Dealing; Ophelia
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0330  Re: Plain Dealing; Ophelia
 
Rick Jones is absolutely right about Hamlet's "mousetrap." He should have had
the king's brother kill the king. Of course, even this wouldn't have proven
that Claudius was/is guilty. Claudius might point out that he took the play as
an insulting accusation that he killed his brother Hamlet.
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk

Re: Authorship (Was Limericks)

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0336.  Saturday, 16 April 1994.
 
(1)     From:   David Joseph Kathman" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 13 Apr 94 18:54:40 CDT
        Subj:   Re:  SHK 5.0333  Re: Limericks and a Related Query
 
(2)     From:   Pat Buckridge <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 14 Apr 1994 15:32:01 +1000 (EST)
        Subj:   Limericks
 
(3)     From:   James Callahan" <S3CALLAH%This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 14 APR 1994 10:26 -00
        Subj:   More "Authorship"?
 
(4)     From:   E. L. Epstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 14 Apr 1994 12:17:53 EDT
        Subj:   RE: SHK 5.0333  Re: Limericks and a Related Query
 
(5)     From:   Timothy Bowden <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 14 Apr 94 11:50:56 PST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0334  Qs: Teaching; Brook's *MND*; *Tro.*; Villains
 
(6)     From:   Ronald Dwelle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 15 Apr 94 10:03:54 EST
        Subj:   authorship redux
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Joseph Kathman" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 13 Apr 94 18:54:40 CDT
Subject: 5.0333  Re: Limericks and a Related Query
Comment:        Re:  SHK 5.0333  Re: Limericks and a Related Query
 
Rick Jones asks whether anyone has ever suggested that Lyly and Marlowe
were not who we think they were, and the answer is, "Of course they have".
I know for sure that Charlton Ogburn Jr., the leading Oxfordian, believes
that Oxford wrote not only Shakespeare but all of Lyly's work as well, and
I think (though I'm less sure off the top of my head) that Ogburn gives
Marlowe's corpus to Oxford also; if he doesn't, there are certainly others
(e.g. Stephanie Caruana) who do.  The logic is impeccable: Shakespeare's
plays are too beautiful to have been written by the unlettered yokel from
Stratford, so they must have been written by the omniscient and brilliant
Earl of Oxford; Lyly's and Marlowe's plays are also suspiciously well
written, have demonstrable parallels with Shakespeare's work, and are much
better than what came immediately before; ergo, the same brilliant Oxford
must have written them as well.  The same logic has led Ogburn (and to an
even greater extent, Caruana) to give Oxford credit for massive chunks of
Elizabethan drama, including, I believe, the works of Greene, Peele, and
Nashe in addition to those of Lyly and Marlowe.  Now I know more sober
Oxfordians (and near-Oxfordians, like John Mucci) will cry that the issue
of whether Oxford wrote Shakespeare is separate from whether he wrote
Marlowe or Greene, but I really don't think it is; the arguments in both
cases are remarkably similar, involving the same type of "evidence", and if
one accepts the premises which lead to the conclusion that Oxford wrote
Shakespeare, one virtually *has* to accept the conclusion that Oxford (or
someone similar) wrote almost the whole of Elizabethan drama.  I hope it's
clear that I don't think much of either argument, though I respect those
who make the arguments, as long as they respect me.
 
And by the way, can we *please* put to rest that old anti-Stratfordian
canard about the spelling of Shakespeare's name?  Yes, I will grant you
that he was baptized as "Gulielmus Shakspere", and that he signed his
name "Shakspere" or "Shakspeare", and that the name on the First Folio
and most of the Quartos is "Shakespeare".  But a systematic review of the
evidence reveals how absolutely meaningless this distinction is.  About
a year ago I did an informal survey of how the name was spelled in primary
documents referring unambiguously to: a) the Stratford man, and b) the
playwright.  Guess what --- the name was more likely to appear without the
first e (e.g. Shakspere) when referring to the *playwright*.  You could
make a pretty good case that people were more likely to omit the first e
when writing longhand than when setting type: for example, on June 12, 1593,
Richard Stonley bought a copy of Venus and Adonis, with a dedication signed
by "William Shakespeare", then wrote in his diary that he had bought
"Venus and Athonay pr. Shakspere".  Many other examples could be given.
In the Bellot-Mountjoy suit of 1612, he is consistently referred to as
"William Shakespeare" of Stratford-on-Avon, though he signed his name
"Willm Shakp" on his deposition.  I defy anyone to show me systematic
evidence that *any* variation in the spelling of Shakespeare's name had
*any* consistent significance.  I'm pretty sure it can't be done, because
I've looked.
 
Dave Kathman
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Pat Buckridge <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 14 Apr 1994 15:32:01 +1000 (EST)
Subject:        Limericks
 
Dave Kathman sees the case for Oxford's authorship as unavoidably 'elitist'.
This is a fairly frequent response: David Bevington's equivalent phrase is
'essentially snobbish'.  It depresses me when I encounter it, because it
usually comes from people who are on the left politically, as I am myself, and
who should, it seems to me, be sympathetic to a position which acknowledges the
material cultural determinations of artistic achievement and rejects idealisms
about the miraculous operations of untutored genius.  In other words, to write
the way Shakespeare did he had somehow to acquire the huge wealth of cultural
knowledge his plays contain.
 
My impression is that, printing and Humanism notwithstanding, improvements in
public schooling were not really that spectacular in the sixteenth century:
schools like Westminster and the Merchant Taylors were certainly not typical.
An education of the kind 'Shakespeare' (the playwright) must have had could
only have been gained through intensive tutoring, a stint at the university,
and then some: the kind of education available to male members of the nobility
and gentry, and not too many others.  We know William Shakspere of Stratford
didn't go to either university - nearly all his contemporary playwrights did;
indeed, there is no evidence that he even attended the Stratford grammar school
(and no reason to suppose he would have, since his parents were illiterate).
 
The Oxfordian position is not elitist, but Elizabethan society certainly was -
an aristocratic oligarchy if ever there was one.  One of the most remarkable
effects of Stratfordianism is the way it can induce people who obviously know a
lot about Elizabethan society -- the rigid class system, with its powerful
legal and ideological supports -- to abandon that knowledge in order to swallow
the most improbable violations of social decorum, placing William Shakspere, a
journeyman player from the sticks in his late twenties, in a variety of
unimaginable relations with members of the aristocracy, up to and sometimes
including the Queen.
 
The oligarchic structure of Elizabethan society was in no way inconsistent with
'the rapid development of a theater *for* [though not *by*] the common people'
- far from it.  Such an institution was very much what Elizabeth and her
government wanted, and there is evidence that they helped to finance it from
the start.  The historical context -- and Oxfordians give it more attention
than most -- includes a series of Catholic-inspired assassination plots against
the Queen, and an enormously expensive and protracted war with Spain, lasting
until after the turn of the century.  What England needed, and was able to
bring into being, using the top-down methods natural to such a polity, was a
mass instrument of English Protestant propaganda: the public theatre.
 
Anyone who's interested more of this should read Charlton Ogburn's book, *The
Mysterious William Shakespeare* without delay.  Apart from anything else it's
extremely witty.
 
To Steve Urkowitz:
 
I'm all for *irreverence*, but it's an odd word to use for the Bevington
limericks.  Has Oxfordianism recently become the established orthodoxy at which
irreverent Stratfordians cock their sceptical snooks?  What world are you on,
Steve?  I'm on planet Earth where the Stratfordians are the kings of the
castle.
 
As for ridicule, well, there's a politics of ridicule, as there is of most
things, and there's no discourtesy in drawing attention to that fact from time
to time.  Plato's question about what to do when people refuse to accept the
conclusions of argument and evidence is one that Oxfordians confront all the
time.
 
To Rick Jones:
 
I agree with your ratio of gaps as between Udall, Lyly/Marlowe, and
Shakespeare.  I don't know of any alter egos proposed for Lyly and Marlowe.
What is known about them, though, is that they were both closely associated
with Oxford in the 1580s.  Lyly was his Private Secretary for several years.
Hence, the argument runs, to the extent that their writing approaches
Shakespeare's it is because they were profoundly influenced by Oxford's writing
 and in a position to profit by his example in part by reason of their
university trainings.
 
Pat Buckridge.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           James Callahan" <S3CALLAH%This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 14 APR 1994 10:26 -00
Subject:        More "Authorship"?
 
ATTENTION: Real academic query at end...
 
I personally thought that the authorship question had been put to rest when
that book came out claiming that Marlowe was Will's double.  It seems to me
that there are some more ridiculous and involved arguments proving authorship
one way or another than there are vague misdirecting words in a politician's
lexicon.  The most interesting part of the debate, for me, has been the
arguments and the ridiculous way some people back up their "claim".
 
Gold prospectors stop when the vein runs out, or the stream is clean, but it
seems "Shakespeare" prospectors never die, they just go on T.V.
 
Plugging my sarcasm into my own existence, I find myself intrigued by these
arguments and forming an opinion.  My opinion is based entirely on a random
flip of the metaphoric coin and I back up Mark Twain.  Not that Mark Twain
wrote Shakespeare, but I back up Bacon, who Mr. Clemens claims really wrote the
plays.  In a rare-ish book called _WASN'T SHAKESPEARE SOMEONE ELSE????_ (I
think, but I am probably wrong) Twain says that Bacon is Shakespeare, and that
is good enough for me.
 
Now, back to the virtually real world.
 
I am interested in the arguments themselves.  If people would like to send me
the names of authors and books whose arguments are totally off-the-wall, I
would be interested in compiling a quasi-bibliography of ridiculous Shakespeare
arguments.  You may reach me here at s3callah@ilstu please send it private, as
I do not want to take up more of the list than I have already.
 
Thank you,
jim
<s3callah@ilstu>
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           E. L. Epstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 14 Apr 1994 12:17:53 EDT
Subject: 5.0333  Re: Limericks and a Related Query
Comment:        RE: SHK 5.0333  Re: Limericks and a Related Query
 
What I meant was that the argument for Oxford is circular; we only know how
kings and queens spoke because Shakespeare told us. How they really spoke was
probably like Tammany ward heelers, because royal politics was as dirty as you
get. EL Epstein
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Timothy Bowden <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 14 Apr 94 11:50:56 PST
Subject: 5.0334  Qs: Teaching; Brook's *MND*; *Tro.*; Villains
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0334  Qs: Teaching; Brook's *MND*; *Tro.*; Villains
 
I believe we can all agree on the following standard scenario:
 
Edward de Vere saw a fitting match for his lovely daughter Bridget in one
William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke in-waiting.  Discretion prevented his urging
the young man to the bond as he might like (1), and so he devised a strategy.
 
On the occasion of the young lord's 17th birthday, on 8 Apr 1597, there was
gathered at the country estate at Wilton a sparkling array of the luminaries
from court, the arts and letters to celebrate.  On that occasion, put forth was
one Stratfordian with a gift of one each short poems for every year of the life
of young Herbert, with one common theme - that he should marry.
 
Of course, the Earl of Oxford was the author of the works, being of all present
the most invested in the project.  However, to the irritation of many,
including the great Lord Burghley himself, the scheme failed.
 
Oxford was understandably disappointed.  He was known to dabble in poetry, and
so as time permitted (and nobles then and now weren't particularly pressed for
time)  he continued to chronicle the interplay of Pembroke and his Cyrano in
portraits which flattered neither.  The bond presented was a bit, ah, Greek to
the taste, and there were illicit doings off-page hinted at, and gross chagrin
and guilt and woe as well.
 
Oh, dear.  But it all was harmless enough - until 1609.  At that time, the Earl
found a method of revenge diabolical in both cleverness and effect.  He
presented the accumulated 150 and more of the poems to another Stratfordian,
this one a printer, in such manner to credit the gift as from the Earl of
Pembroke himself!
 
Oh, was Mr Thorpe not grateful?  He was.  But not everyone, as might be
imagined, was pleased.  And herein lies a dilemna.
 
For the tale as told was true.  And, after taking such round credit at Wilton
for their production when they were innocent, could the Stratfordian then turn
and deny ownership of the poems?  He could not.
 
Through private pressures and amid public silence, the practical joke was
stuffed back into the bottle, and the poems were not heard from again for a
hundred years or more.  Oxford, at least, was presumably pleased, as we may
guess was young Bridget.
 
I hope this construction does not overly jostle known facts nor juggle existing
theories.
 
-Tim Bowden
 (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)
 
(1)  We remember how Shakespeare was pressed into duty of the same
     nature by the Mountjoys while living with them some years later.
 
(6)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ronald Dwelle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 15 Apr 94 10:03:54 EST
Subject:        authorship redux
 
                Triumph of the Will
 
     In this authorship question's dull screed,
     There is less about justice than greed;
        Some desire this man's art,
        Of his scope claim a part,
     "Just a piece of the action," indeed!
 
     4/13/94/dah

Qs: Teaching; Brook's *MND*; *Tro.*; Villains

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0334.  Wednesday, 13 April 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Bill Dynes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, April  12, 1994
        Subj:   Teaching aids for the undergrad classroom
 
(2)     From:   Scott Crozier <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 13 Apr 1994 08:13:41 +1000
        Subj:   Brook's MND
 
(3)     From:   Alan Weber <BA07746%This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Apr 1994 19:18 EST
        Subj:   Query
 
(4)     From:   Doug Cummins <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 13 Apr 1994 09:15:17 CST
        Subj:   Villains in Shakespeare
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Dynes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, April 12, 1994
Subject:        Teaching aids for the undergrad classroom
 
I'm a new member of SHAKSPER, so I hope you'll forgive me if this subject has
been discussed more thoroughly in the past.  I'm wondering what teaching aids
others use to help students, primarily undergrads, *flesh out* and become more
comfortable with the plays, the era, and the like.  I use videos, of course,
and a small model of the Globe theater for discussions of the original playing
space.  What else is out there?
 
Dr. Bill Dynes
University of Indianapolis
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Scott Crozier <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 13 Apr 1994 08:13:41 +1000
Subject:        Brook's MND
 
I'm interested in discovering from those who saw the production, whether the
plate that Brook used as a the little western flower actually made an audible
sound over the volume of the dialogue? I know of the freekas and the noise that
the metal trees would have made but did the flower made a sound?
 
Regards,
Scott Crozier
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Alan Weber <BA07746%This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Apr 1994 19:18 EST
Subject:        Query
 
Dear Shake-fans,
 
Herzlichiu Gruzzen from Binghamton, NY, where the candle of Shakespeare burns
amid post-industrial depression.  I have been reading through some of the
medieval Troy stories which contain the Troilus and Cressida legend.  I came
across this curious line in a Mittelhochdeutsche poem
 
ez ist auch naturlich, daz ain yeglichiu fraw dez manns allzeit begert, reht
alz diu materi begert der form [it is also natural that every woman always
desires a man, just as material desires form]
 
The passage seems to be related to Guido delle Colonne (Historia Destructionis
Troiae)
 
Scimus enim mulieris animum semper virum appetere, sicut appetit materia semper
formam.  O utinam materia, transiens semel in formam posset dici suo contenta
formata!
 
I can't help but think that Shakespeare came across this passage in one of the
many European translations of Guido, and that a form/ material metaphor runs
explicitly throughout T&C, with Troilus as form and universal and Cressida as
world or material.  The idea of celestial male form and terrestrial female
material has a long history (Aristotle De Physica, Gnostics, Nichomachus,
Paracelsus in the Renaissance).  Has anyone uncovered any other metaphors in
T&C or other plays drawn from Scholastic, Stoic, or Renaissance physics?  I
know we're not supposed to think in dualistic terms in modern philosophy, mais
que sais-je?  I have been enjoying the Shaksper discussions.
 
                                -- von Weber
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Doug Cummins <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 13 Apr 1994 09:15:17 CST
Subject:        Villains in Shakespeare
 
Good Morning!  I am working with an undergraduate student on a research paper
comparing various Shakespearian "villains", namely Iago, Richard III, and
Claudius.  The paper is prompted by the fact that he is playing Claudius in our
current production of Hamlet, which I am directing.  He has done a fine job, so
far, but we've both reached a kind of dead end in finding material that
compares the characters.  We especially need more information on Claudius.
There's a lot of stuff on Richard and Iago, as you might expect, but old
Claudius is overshadowed by his Danish step-son. I am primarily a director and
and actor, and although I revere the works of WS and perform them regularly,
I'm not up on all the current research on the Bard.  If you know of some
sources or have some information that Kirk could use in his paper, please send
them out on the wire,or mail them to me privately at dcummins@panam. Kirk and I
will be  very grateful.
 
In the meantime, we open Hamlet on April 27.  We'll appreciate all the good
vibes,wishes, prayers and incantations you can send our way.
 
"Remember me . . ." Doug Cummins, The University of Texas - Pan American,
Edinburg TX

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.