1994

Re: *R and G*; *Shrew*; Bankside

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0440.  Wednesday, 18 May 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Nick Clary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 May 1994 09:04:06 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   R and G are Dead
 
(2)     From:   Carey Cummings <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 16 May 94 19:52:34 EDT
        Subj:   To shrew or not to shrew
 
(3)     From:   Jerald Bangham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 16 May 1994 18:41:48
        Subj:   Bankside Restoration
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Nick Clary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 17 May 1994 09:04:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        R and G are Dead
 
Methuen published two quite useful books at a reasonable price:
 
        Richard Corballis. STOPPARD: THE MYSTERY AND THE CLOCKWORK (1984)
                [this includes a nice appendix, "II. Applied Stoppard:
                 The Adaptations," as well as a comprehensive bibliography]
 
        Malcolm Page, compiler. FILE ON STOPPARD (1986)
                [this includes excerpts from reviews of each of his plays
                 as well as a selected bibliography, briefly annotated
                 in many cases]
 
Students who have done seminar essays on Stoppard have found that the available
secondary resources are plentiful.  Scholars in the U.S. were quicker than were
British scholars to recognize Stoppard as a significant new playwright.
 
Nick Clary
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carey Cummings <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 16 May 94 19:52:34 EDT
Subject:        To shrew or not to shrew
 
I feel like the "unfortunate Memphis man who kicked old Buddah's gong" in the
Hoagy Carmichael song "Hong Kong Blues." I just thought it might be
interesting to see if there are any linguistic deviations between Kate's last
speech and her prior speeches and the speeches of other "shrews."  I don't
care if Shakespeare wrote the scene or not.  I'm not trying to save the Bard
from any felt or believed misogynist leanings.  I just thought it might be
fun to investigate.
 
Carey Cummings
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jerald Bangham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 16 May 1994 18:41:48
Subject:        Bankside Restoration
 
>In late July I'll be in London and am planning to visit the Bankside Globe
>restoration.  Can anyone let me know about hours, fees, things to see, etc?
 
At Christmas time the final framing timbers were going up.  I'm not sure that
anything will be open yet.  If it isn't, there is always the nearby Bear Garden
Museum which will undoubtedly have exhibits on the progress.
 
Jerry Bangham
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: Polonius, Authorship, and Court News

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0439.  Wednesday, 18 May 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Martin Green <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 16 May 94 09:03:58 -0400
        Subj:   Re: D. J. Kathman on Polonius and Authorship
 
(2)     From:   Steve Urkowitz <SURCC@CUNYVM>
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 May 94 06:54:09 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0437  Re: Polonius and Authorship
 
(3)     From:   Joseph Lawrence Lyle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 May 1994 08:28:56 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0437  Re: Polonius and Authorship
 
(4)     From:   David Evett <R0870%This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday 17 May 1994 13:23 ET
        Subj:   Court News
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Green <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 16 May 94 09:03:58 -0400
Subject:        Re: D. J. Kathman on Polonius and Authorship
 
I completely agree with David Joseph Kathman's observation that Burleigh's
being the model for Polonius (if indeed he was) proves nothing about the
authorship question.
 
As Mr. Kathman points out, one assumption in the argument to the contrary is
that
 
>William Shakespeare of Stratford could never have known enough
>about Burleigh to caricature him, since he (Shakespeare) was not a member of
>Court
 
in response to which Mr. Kathman presents a convincing number of ways in which
Shakespeare could have been well-informed indeed about Burleigh. To his list, I
wish to add one more item: if Shakespeare was a personal acquaintance of the
third Earl of Southampton (as I believe, in my recent book, I have conclusively
shown he was), then in the earl, who had been Burleigh's ward from his eighth
to 21st years, Shakespeare would have had an excellent source of information
about  Burleigh's person and personality, and, most particularly, of such
pronouncements and wisdom as Burleigh  was apt - no doubt often, and at great
length - to pass on to his young charge.
 
M. Green
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Steve Urkowitz <SURCC@CUNYVM>
Date:           Tuesday, 17 May 94 06:54:09 EDT
Subject: 5.0437  Re: Polonius and Authorship
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0437  Re: Polonius and Authorship
 
Thomas Ellis misses the point of the poems circulated under the Earl of
Oxford's name.  Obviously these were clever satires that everyone in the court
laughed  at or knowingly winked about.  Clearly Oxford took the opportunity to
transcribe in shorthand the native woodnotes wild of the Stratford maltster for
the amusement of his intimate circle who were in on the conspiracy.
 
                              Oxfordowitz, First Earl of da' Bronx
                              (my other works are published under the pseudonym
                               WW Greg)
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joseph Lawrence Lyle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 17 May 1994 08:28:56 -0400
Subject: 5.0437  Re: Polonius and Authorship
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0437  Re: Polonius and Authorship
 
 
Hooray for Thomas Ellis (who showed us a bit of the real Earl of Oxford).
What's all the fuss about?
 
Jay Lyle
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <R0870%This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday 17 May 1994 13:23 ET
Subject:        Court News
 
Thanks to Dave Strathman for his salvo.  Let me suggest as a source for court
news what would later become the servants' hall.  Large households--the
Queen's or Burghley's--had dozens and dozens of people, some of whom were in
position to see or hear the most intimate and sensitive details of their
masters' affairs; they came and went on errands and visits, became guests in
other households when their masters travelled, moved from livery to livery as
the opportunities allowed (e.g. Lancelot Gobbo shifting from Shylock's service
to Bassanio's), left service to set up as tavern-keepers or small-holders.
Actors were technically and to some extent practically servants of Lord
So-and-so or even the monarch, and in any case would have had all kinds of
opportunity for chatting with the full-timers.  Anxiety lest the servants
betray household secrets appears in many of the contemporary treatments of the
servant's role--Baptista worries about it in Act 4 of <Shrew>: no smoke
without fire, I think. Nashe's account of the servant's life in <The
Unfortunate Traveller> is a fiction, not a treatise, of course, but it rings
true, and testifies to the importance of gossip and other conversation in the
life of people who spent a lot of their time waiting for orders.  I've been
persuaded for years that Shakespeare was a great listener--if only because
most of the contemporary comments about him are so kind--and the amount of
information you can pick up if you are willing to listen with real interest is
great, as any working reporter will tell you.  In any case, it's not as if the
kinds of information necessary to produce a satirical portrait of a
statesman--a nickname, a trick of speech, the names of some foreign visitors
or correspondents--were exactly state secrets.  And the likelihood that
Shakespeare picked up a lot of his incidental knowledge in this way--to say
nothing of his familiarity with many kinds of human behavior and speech--seems
very strong to me.
 
                                       Dave "Little Pitcher" Evett

Re: Feste; Masks; Polonius and Authorship

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0437.  Monday, 16 May 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Priscilla Finley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 14 May 1994 13:53:28 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   re: Feste
 
(2)     From:   Stephen Orgel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 15 May 1994 10:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0429  Re: masks
 
(3)     From:   Thomas I. Ellis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 15 May 1994 18:00:08 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0432  Re: Character; Polonius and Authorship
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Priscilla Finley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 14 May 1994 13:53:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        re: Feste
 
To Matthew Vail Smith, regarding Feste's signifying,
 
A good starting point for assembling a biblio. on Feste's slipperiness would be
Keir Elam's book "Language-Games in Shakespeare's Comedies" (title may not be
exact). He focuses on Merry Wives & Love's Labor's Lost, which you might
examine too if you're serious about deconstructive language & modes of meaning,
but I'm pretty sure he discusses Feste as well. Also coming immediately to mind
is an article by Elizabeth Freund called "Twelfth Night and the Tyranny of
Interpretation" (ELH 53(1986): 471-489).
 
I would appreciate it if you could either post or e-mail a summary of the
responses you get, since this is a topic I'm keeping notes on too.
 
Thanks!
Priscilla Finley
SUNY Binghamton
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephen Orgel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 15 May 1994 10:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 5.0429  Re: masks
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0429  Re: masks
 
I think masks may have been partly naturalized in the Renaissance. When I was
working on the Inigo Jones drawings I was struck by the fact that, though we
know masquers always wore masks to perform, the costume designs without
exception show the masquers without them. This suggests that, at the very
least, Jones didn't consider them part of the costume.
 
S. Orgel
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas I. Ellis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 15 May 1994 18:00:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 5.0432  Re: Character; Polonius and Authorship
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0432  Re: Character; Polonius and Authorship
 
There is another problem with the claim that a Polonius as a caricature of Lord
Burleigh is somehow "proof" that Oxford, and not Shakespeare, wrote "Hamlet."
That is that Oxford was, in fact, Burleigh's son-in-law; his first wife, Anne
Cecil, was Burleigh's daughter. It would have been irregular indeed for Oxford
to create a caricature of his own father-in-law.
 
Moreover, aside from the inherent improbability of this and all other
conspiracy theories--the notion that virtually all of Elizabethan London would
be parties to a grand cover-up for the purpose of duping--whom?--their
descendents?--the Oxford hypothesis fails a simple and obvious test: we have a
number of poems reliably attributed to the Earl of Oxford, and if there were
anything at all to this claim of Shakespearean authorship, one would expect to
find some glimmering of talent and insight--a droll wit, perhaps, or a penchant
for subtle ironies and word-play--in these poems. In fact we find none
whatsoever; instead these poems are mediocre and conventional in every respect,
with clumsy diction, hackneyed conceits, and prosody so incompetent that
awkward inverted diction and "filler words" proliferate throughout. Here is an
example:
 
Wherewith I muse why men of wit have love so dearly bought.
For love is worse than hate, and eke more harm hath done;
Record I take of those that rede of Paris, Priam's son.
 
It seemed the god of sleep had mazed so much his wits
When he refused wit for love, which cometh but by fits.
But why accuse I him whom earth hath covered long?
There be of his posterity alive; I do him wrong.
 
Whom I might well condemn, to be a cruel judge
Unto myself, who hath that crime in others that I grudge.
 (From Hebel & Hudson's "Poetry of the English Renaissance" p. 103)
 
Can anyone seriously maintain that the man who penned this tissue of Petrarchan
cliches in his own name would take on a mask to write the greatest poetry in
the English language? Q.E.D.
 
Thomas I. Ellis
Hampton University
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Q: Bankside Restoration

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0438.  Monday, 16 May 1994.
 
From:           Edna Boris <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 15 May 94 20:49:00 EDT
Subject:        Bankside Restoration
 
In late July I'll be in London and am planning to visit the Bankside Globe
restoration.  Can anyone let me know about hours, fees, things to see, etc?

Re; *R and G Are Dead*

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0436.  Monday, 16 May 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Bernice W. Kliman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 14 May 1994 15:24 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0433  Re: *R and G Are Dead*
 
(2)     From:   Leslie Thomson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 14 May 1994 20:26:41 -0400
        Subj:   Re: R and G are Dead
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bernice W. Kliman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 14 May 1994 15:24 EDT
Subject: 5.0433  Re: *R and G Are Dead*
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0433  Re: *R and G Are Dead*
 
I like the film *R&G ARE DEAD* and do not think it is, as Don Foster says,
*a near-perfect disaster.*
 
Yours, Bernice W. Kliman
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Leslie Thomson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 14 May 1994 20:26:41 -0400
Subject:        Re: R and G are Dead
 
For criticism of *R and G are Dead* and of Stoppard generally, see the annual
bibliography in the June issue of *Modern Drama*; another good reference is
*File on Stoppard*.  I forget the compiler/author's name. Hope this helps.
 
Leslie Thomson

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.