1995

CFP et al.: *Early Modern Literary Studies*

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0019. Saturday, 14 January, 1995.
 
From:           R. G. Siemens, Editor, EMLS <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Jan 95 12:03:30 PST
Subject:        EMLS: Call for materials
 
***********************************************************
* CALL FOR MATERIALS: PAPERS, REVIEWS, AND INTERNET LINKS *
***********************************************************
 
  [This message will be cross-posted; please excuse duplication]
 
EARLY MODERN LITERARY STUDIES:
A JOURNAL OF SIXTEENTH- AND SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLISH
LITERATURE
 
EMLS: General Information
 
     Early Modern Literary Studies (ISSN 1201-2459), a new
     refereed journal in electronic form, intends to serve both
     as a formal arena for scholarly discussion and as an
     academic resource for researchers in the area.  Articles in
     EMLS will examine English literature, literary culture, and
     language during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries from
     a variety of perspectives; well-considered responses to
     published papers will also be published as part of a
     Readers' Forum.  Reviews in EMLS will evaluate recent work
     in the area as well as academic tools of interest to
     scholars in the field.  Our Internet site will also gather
     and maintain links to useful on-line resources.
 
     EMLS will be available free of charge in hypertextual format
     on the World Wide Web at
 
          http://unixg.ubc.ca:7001/0/e-sources/emls/emlshome.html
 
     This site is now accessible for browsing, and our first
     issue will appear in Spring 1995.  A version will also be
     available via GOPHER.
 
     EMLS will be published three times a year for the on-line
     academic community by the University of British Columbia's
     English Department, with the support of the University's
     Library and Arts Computing Centre.
 
CALL FOR PAPERS
 
     EMLS invites contributions of critical essays on literary
     topics and of interdisciplinary studies which centre on
     literature and literary culture in English during the
     sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.  A wide range of
     approaches is encouraged.
 
CALL FOR REVIEWS
 
     EMLS invites reviews of recent scholarly works -- critical
     editions, commentaries, and theoretical, historical,
     literary, or interdisciplinary criticism which centres on
     sixteenth- or seventeenth-century English or related
     literary culture. We also encourage reports of all resources
     which are relevant to literary studies of the period,
     including those available exclusively in the electronic
     medium.
 
     Our aim is to publish reviews of a consistently high
     standard, which are both engaging and critically fair,
     written by a broad range of people at different stages of
     their academic careers with varied disciplinary backgrounds.
 
CALL FOR LINKS
 
     The Electronic Editors at EMLS wish to provide links from
     the EMLS On-line Resources Page to WWW-accessible resources
     of interest to scholars in English, particularly scholars of
     the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
 
     We have a growing number of sites and services in mind, but
     the dispersed and evolving nature of the Internet makes it
     likely that we will not catalog them all.  If you know of a
     resource that would be a useful addition to those resources
     already available through the EMLS On-line Resources Page,
     please let us know by sending a short description of the
     site or service along with its URL (Universal Resource
     Locator).
 
SUBMISSION PROCEDURE
 
     Contributions, including critical essays and studies,
     bibliographies, notices, letters to the Editor, and other
     materials, may be submitted to the Editor by electronic mail
     at
 
          This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
     or by regular mail at Early Modern Literary Studies,
     Department of English, University of British Columbia, #397
     - 1873 East Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T
     1Z1; reviews and materials for review may be sent to the
     Review Editor at
 
          This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
     or by regular mail at the same address, above.  Suggestions
     for links and other electronic materials may be sent to the
     Electronic Editors at
 
          This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
     Brief hard-copy correspondence may be sent by fax to (604)
     822-6906.
 
     Electronic mail submissions are accepted in ASCII format.
     Regular mail submissions of material on-disk are accepted in
     ASCII, Wordperfect, or Microsoft Word format; hard-copy
     submissions must be accompanied by electronic copies, either
     on-disk or via electronic mail, and will not be returned.
     All submissions must follow the current Modern Language
     Association Handbook, in addition to the following
     conventions used by EMLS for ASCII text: *bolded text* is
     denoted by asterisks, %italicized text% by percent signs,
     _underlined text_ with the underscore,  ^superscript^ is
     denoted with the caret and is used for note numbers in the
     text, and notes themselves appear at the end of the
     document.  A document outlining the representation of
     non-ASCII characters is available on demand.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
 
     For more information, or to join our mailing list, send a
     message to
 
               This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
Raymond G. Siemens <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Editor, Early Modern Literary Studies,
Department of English, University of British Columbia.

Re: *Rom*/*Oedipus*; *Ado* Reactions; Education;

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0018. Thursday, 12 January, 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Steve Urkowitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 Jan 95 21:23:18 EST
        Subj:   Oedipus and R&J
 
(2)     From:   Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 9 Jan 1995 23:48:21 -0500
        Subj:   Young Men and Much Ado
 
(3)     From:   David Joseph Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 9 Jan 1995 19:25:03 -0600
        Subj:   Re:  SHK 6.0007  Re: Education
 
(4)     From:   E. H. Pearlman <EHPEARLMAN%This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 12 Jan 1995 13:12:09 -0600 (MDT)
        Subj:   [Re: Cost of Horses]
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Steve Urkowitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Jan 95 21:23:18 EST
Subject:        Oedipus and R&J
 
I've been reading the R&J and Fate pieces in very odd orders, in part 'cause I
accidentally zapped a great pile of e-mail (O, ye gods of e-missives, what
message may be considered happy until its final e-rasure!).  Some odd thoughts
to share, though:  If you want to think about culpability and Shakespeare's
take on tragedy, you might glance at how he shaped and reshaped Friar Laurence
in Q1 and Q2. That was a role Don Foster thinks he played (or rather, that's a
role that Foster's rare-word machinery detects as being the font for a
disproportionate number of rare words that show up in later plays).  Repeatedly
at moment after moment Friar Laurence makes worse blunders in the Q2 text than
in Q1, is more cowardly, more self-exculpating, more at fault.  M'gosh, he's
rather like the Duke of Albany in LEAR (another role Foster's engine ascribes
to Shakespeare).
 
Which brings me to thinking about Oedipus as a "good" or "Great" man.  Hunh?
This schmuck solves a riddle and wins the post and bed of the old king. How
though did he get to Thebes?  Well, walking along the road he bumps into a
group of nasty folk who get pushy so he kills them, all but one.  Wow!  So then
later on he pushes to learn the truth about his own background, along the way
cursing an old blind prophet, coming close to arresting his brother-in-law for
treason, and declaring that he must rule no-matter-what.  So he learns the
truth.  What does he do?  Puts out his eyes.  How come?  So he won't have to
look his poppa in the face when he meets him in the underworld.  He's a nasty
intellectual warrior who cannot face up to the viciousness of his bravado.
Sorry, guys, but I grew up in that schoolyard with Oedipus and I pity and fear
him.
 
Friar Laurence leaves that teenage girl who he brought to a crypt, leaves her
to kill herself, leaves her because he is afraid to stand up face to face to
the "watch."
 
Seems to me that Sophocles ain't really worried that much about the gods;
rather he holds up for examination the intellectual thuggery of powerful men
unconstrained by wisdom or humility.  Seems like Shakespeare similarly holds up
for examination the same humiliation-fear driven characters in Verona.  Seems
like Aristotle is playing some other game, avoiding critical looks at warriors.
 Tragic flaws?  Yeah, they sprout into the language around the time we're
tooling up for everybody's favorite -agon-, World War I.  Map the drive for
"truth-at-any- cost" vision of Oedipus onto the movers and shakers of
trench-warfare strategies.  Like Oedipus, those guys never realized that the
bloodied stumps they left on the battlefields belonged to their own poppas and
brothers and sons.
 
G'night, Gracie.
                As ever,
                         Steve Oediperquisites
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 9 Jan 1995 23:48:21 -0500
Subject:        Young Men and Much Ado
 
I, too, read the post about the young mens' reaction to *Ado* (5.1017) with
some concern, being a man myself, and a teacher too.  This is a reaction I
hadn't noticed, at least when I saw Branagh's film.  I've seen it in three
venues:  Chicago, a night show, the Arts Theatre; East Lansing, MI, late
afternoon at the Cineplex Odeon (the local art house); and Jackson, MI,
afternoon, at one of the local multiscreen wonders.  Granted Branagh lightens
the text, but the "naming" scene certainly isn't played for laughs (if you can
ignore Pat Doyle's intrusive score).  All three audiences seemed to find it
genuinely upsetting.
 
These audiences were older.  In the case of Chicago and East Lansing, the
latter a Big-10 University town, I suppose I could argue that the audiences
were more sophisticated, probably about film and perhaps about Shakespeare,
than was that in Jackson.  I wonder whether the cheering relates to the youth
of the males in question, or to their inexperience with Shakespeare.  Our
culture seems to have programmed a response into some young men that violence
against women is acceptable or deserved in some situations, sexual infidelity
being one of the primary circumstances; as Chris Gordon notes in 5.1027,
certainly it has told these young men that violence in general is acceptable
entertainment, and that violence against women is common, and may even be
acceptable entertainment itself (witness Sega-Genesis, Nintendo, slasher films,
sadie-max or highly aggressive pornography).  If the young men aren't sure why
Hero is being attacked but have the notion that Claudio's ire is sexual in its
basis, they might fall back on this programmed reaction, since it has served
them well in the past.
 
It could also be that they're jerks, but the above, I hope, is more the case,
as it might go some way toward explaining though not excusing their behavior.
 
Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Joseph Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 9 Jan 1995 19:25:03 -0600
Subject: 6.0007  Re: Education
Comment:        Re:  SHK 6.0007  Re: Education
 
A few more words on the literacy of the Shakespeares:
 
Given the necessarily fragmentary nature of the evidence we have, a lot of what
anybody says about literacy in Elizabethan England is based on intelligent
guesswork.  John Shakespeare, William's father, made his mark rather than
signing his name on legal documents.  This provides no positive evidence of his
literacy, and it allows us to assume that he probably couldn't sign his name,
which in turn allows us to assume that he probably couldn't read or write.
However, none of this *proves* anything; literate men, such as John's neighbor
Adrian Quiney, sometimes signed with a mark, and contemporary documents make it
clear that it was not uncommon for people to be able to read but not write.  On
balance, I'd say that John Shakespeare *probably* couldn't write, and I'd say
less confidently that he probably couldn't read, but there have certainly been
scholars who have believed that he was literate to some degree, and it is not
unreasonable to think so.
 
Susanna Shakespeare-Hall could sign her name, which allows us to assume she was
literate.  The only potential evidence against this conclusion is the
posthumous story about her supposedly not recognizing her husband's
handwriting, which is a little puzzling in any case.  On balance, I'd say that
it is most likely that Susanna could read and write, but that it is *possible*
that she was only able to sign her name.  (By the way, "witty" in the 17th
century meant "intelligent" rather than "able to toss off clever remarks at
dinner parties.")  Susanna's sister Judith signed with a mark; this provides no
positive evidence that she was literate, and given the very low priority given
to women's education, the most natural assumption is that she was illiterate.
 
So, Shakespeare's father was probably illiterate but possibly not; his one
daughter was probably literate but possibly not; his other daughter was very
probably illiterate.  His only son, Hamnet, died at the age of 11, and we have
no way of assessing his literacy, though the default assumption is that he
would have attended the Stratford grammar school.  A flat statement that all of
William Shakespeare's blood relatives were illiterate through three generations
seems to me not to be a very fair statement of the situation, and at best an
oversimplification.  And in any case, as Terence Hawkes pointed out, we're
talking about the late 16th century here, not the late 20th. The upwardly
mobile middle class, of which Shakespeare was a member, was much better
educated than their parents' generation, but even so, education was seen as
something for boys; educating girls was seen as a waste of precious resources.
Shakespeare was, believe it or not, a product of his times, and however
tempting it may be to infer his personal opinions from what he has the
characters in his plays say, there is nothing surprising about what we know of
his family's literacy.
 
I'm glad we've been able to keep this thread civil, and hope we can continue to
do so.
 
Dave Kathman
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           E. H. Pearlman <EHPEARLMAN%This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 12 Jan 1995 13:12:09 -0600 (MDT)
Subject:        [Re: Cost of Horses]
 
My apologies if this is no longer relevant;  my U changed from one computer to
another and many days of messages were accidentally obliterated. When I was
last connected, there was a query about the price of horses. Today I
encountered the following in Giles Dawson's manual of Elizabethan Handwriting
p.107:  from the market Bosworth fair in 1623:
 
William Alport bought at stoned whyte horse (i.e. a stallion, I presume) for 14
shllings....  Thomas Bannester sould a graye Colte for 3 lb 15 s 8d....
Richard Ridgeway sould a blacke mare for 18 shillings.... Hugh Marshall sould a
Bay Colt stoned 2 yeares old for 3 lb 3 s 4d... John Slater sould a whyte mare
for 35s 8d...
 
But if I were really serious about the price of horses, I would look in the
multi-volume Agrarian History of England.  There are also farm accounts
published in various places;  I recall once reading Robert Loder's, whichI
believe is the most complete.
 
Incidentally, I hope any of my intermittent correspondents along the
Shaksperline will now address me at my new address:  ehpearlman@
castle.cudenver.edu          E. Pearlman

Qs: Teaching Materials; Grant Money; E-Text Sources;

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0016. Thursday, 12 January, 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Martin Zacks <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 9 Jan 1995 12:14:55 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Teaching Materials for 6th graders
 
(2)     From:   Robert Lloyd Neblett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 8 Jan 1995 21:21:15 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Grant Money (MERCHANT)
 
(3)     From:   David L. Gants <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 9 Jan 1995 19:15:14 -0500
        Subj:   Print sources for etext Shakespeares
 
(4)     From:   Peter Novak <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 09 Jan 1995 17:29:31 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   School Tours
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Zacks <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 9 Jan 1995 12:14:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject:        Teaching Materials for 6th graders
 
A friend of mine has asked me for help in finding a lesson plan or materials
for teaching Shakespeare to her 6th grade class. If you know of such material
please contact me directly at my email address.
 
Martin Zacks
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robert Lloyd Neblett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 8 Jan 1995 21:21:15 -0600 (CST)
Subject:        Grant Money (MERCHANT)
 
I will be directing a free-to-the-public outdoor production of THE MERCHANT OF
VENICE this June at Abilene Christian University in Abilene, Texas, and have
just found out from the Theatre department Chair that we do not have the usual
funds for this production.  If anybody knows of any grants for Shakespearean
production for which I might eligibly apply, please forward them to me.  Please
feel free to use my personal e-mail address as well.  I realize that it is
rather late to be applying for a grant for this summer, but we are desperate.
Thank you in advance.
 
Robert L. Neblett
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David L. Gants <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 9 Jan 1995 19:15:14 -0500
Subject:        Print sources for etext Shakespeares
 
I've recently downloaded two public domain etexts of Shakespeare's works, the
"Moby Shakespeare" found at most gopher and WWW sites, and the Shakespeare
available through Project Gutenberg.  I'd like to work with these texts, but as
with so much of the material circulating on the Net, neither contain any clues
as to the print source from which they were taken.  Can anyone who has worked
with these texts offer information as to their source?
 
In a related matter, I'd like to get ahold of an etext Shakespeare that derives
from the old Globe Shakespeare edition.  Has anyone in the group come across or
used such a text?
 
Thanks in advance, and to save bandwidth, respond personally to:
 
        David Gants, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Novak <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 09 Jan 1995 17:29:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject:        School Tours
 
Some of my students expressed the desire to put together a 50-minute to
75-minute touring show that would educate junior high and high school students
about Shakespeare. I told them that I would ask y'all to see if you had any
recommendations for them as to what to include.
 
Our university would pay for the event, so English and Drama teachers would not
need to have funds for it. So, I ask...if you had a group of enthusiastic
university students who wanted to talk about Shakespeare in your classes, what
areas would you want them to cover for you?
 
Do any of you have experience that would help us avoid some pitfalls? We would
be most appreciative of your comments.
 
Peter Novak
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: *MV and Anti-Semitism

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0017. Thursday, 12 January, 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 11 Jan 1995 14:19:54 -0800
        Subj:   Religion
 
(2)     From:   Thomas Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 Jan 1995 16:34:33 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0006 *MV* and Anti-Semitism
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 11 Jan 1995 14:19:54 -0800
Subject:        Religion
 
Shakespeare didn't have any good to say of Jews. Aside from MV, when characters
in the other plays speak of them at all, it is to curse them or take out a mild
oath on Jewry: "If I do not love her, I am a Jew." (Much Ado ii,3,272) Which
reminds me of Goering: "If they bomb Berlin, you can call me Meyer." But that
comment by Benedick is mild. Shakespeare says worse than that, and not to
condemn usury merely, but speaks badly toward Jews just because they are Jews,
and not Christians.
 
In those times, to be anti-Semitic was common and thoughtless. You might say
that Shakespeare himself was not this way, and lay the blame entirely on his
characters, but a playwright's characters often speak speak his own mind, and
Shakespeare's comments on Jews is often gratuitous.
 
So was Shakespeare anti-Semitic or not, aside from the feelings of his
characters?  And here's another religious question.  Was Shakespeare Church of
England, Catholic, or Puritan?
 
Schoenbaum reports that Davies wrote "He died a Papist."  But Davies is an
unreliable source, and Shoenbaum ventures no opinion, and leaves Shakespeare's
faith an open question.  Sidney Lee says of the Bard's religious opinions that
we have "niether the means nor the warrent for discussing."  The "means" seem
to be plenty, all the poems and plays. But "warrent" is a strange thing to say.
Lee seems to mean that we haven't any business asking the question in the first
place.
 
A man's faith is an important part of himself, and are there clues to his
belief in what he writes?  How might it be, if we may deduce from the works?
Was Shakespeare Church of England, Catholic, or--God help us--a Puritan?
 
    Kennedy
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Jan 1995 16:34:33 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 6.0006 *MV* and Anti-Semitism
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0006 *MV* and Anti-Semitism
 
Aaron:  I spent some time working on Merchant last semester.  I even wrote a
paper sympathizing with the plight of Shylock.  It isn't hard to come up with
reasons with all the anti-semitic comments made.  However about two thirds of
the way through the course I had a revelation. Shylock is not a sympathetic
character, he's a bad man and a greedy man to whom money holds more importance
than his daughter.  What if you took out all of the offensive Jew comments and
inserted something like "Crack head" or "Loan shark."  Then you get a different
picture of Shylock.
 
Shakespeare didn't create a portrait of a Jew in Shylock, he created a comic
blocking character to be laughed at.  Making him a Jew made the character seem
exotic to a heterogenous Elizabethan audience. Merchant is a troubling play in
many ways.  Don't dwell on it too much I'm sure he meant no offence to you.
 
                                        Thomas Hall

Qs: Shakespeare as Actor; Rape/Incest; E-Mail

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 015. Wednesday, 11 January, 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Frances Reed <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 6 Jan 1995 20:40:14 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Shakspeare as actor
 
(2)     From:   Carey Cummings <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 08 Jan 1995 16:27:56 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Help about rape\incest
 
(3)     From:   David Loeb <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 6 Jan 1995 17:33:31 -0500
        Subj:   [E-mail Collaboration]
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Frances Reed <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 6 Jan 1995 20:40:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Shakspeare as actor
 
After reading that Shakspeare often acted a small role in his plays, my high
school students are curious as to what role he may have played in Macbeth,
which we are currently studying.  If anyone can tell us, please feel free to
send the answer directly to me.  We would also like any other information about
his acting.
 
Thanks,
Frances Reed
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carey Cummings <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 08 Jan 1995 16:27:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Help about rape\incest
 
I know that this is somewhat out of the area of this list but my lurking about
has uncovered the fact that there is an immense amount of arcane and out of
area knowledge out there. I have a friend who is  doing as a dissertation a
hypertext edition of Anne Killegrew's poems.  In one of the poems Killegrew has
a speaker comment on the  "late laws against rape and incest."  I have been
unable to track down anything specific on rape/incest laws in the mid to late
1600s. Does anyone know of any specific laws in the 1650s, 60s, or 70s?  Does
anyone have an idea where to look?  Perhaps it would be best to answer directly
to me rather than to clutter the list with information not germane to the
general topic of discussion, viz. Shakespeare.  I would greatly appreciate any
information, comments or suggestions.  Thanks very much.
 
Carey Cummings
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Loeb <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 6 Jan 1995 17:33:31 -0500
Subject:        [E-mail Collaboration]
 
I'm looking for a secondary teacher who'd like to investigate the possibility
of collaborating on an e-mail partner approach to studying either the comedies,
individual comedies, Hamlet, or perhaps even Romeo & Juliet.  I teach at Choate
and I've recently worked on a hypertext multimedia Hamlet with some success.
Right now, I've got my freshmen going with text, vocab, and questions for
Midsummer Night's Dream on disks.  Has anyone done stuff like this, and do you
have pointers for me?  Finally, I'm planning on showing the Central Park film,
with William Hurt as Oberon.  That's my favorite, ahead of the ponderous BBC
and the silly old B&W with Mickey Rooney as Puck and Cagney as Bottom. Are
there any other good ones out there?  Thanks.  Dave

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.