September
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0711, Friday, 22 September 1995. (1) From: <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 12:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own (2) From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 14:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 12:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own Comment: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own Chris. You might check Al Shoaf's books on Dante and Milton for a fine meditation on how these words worked together in the Renaissance. I don't know what else he's published on the matter since then, but he was thinking a lot about it ten or so years ago. The third step should be "know," shouldn't it? Shoaf shows how these work together in *Milton, Poet of Duality*. It also seems to work for me in Olivia's "ourselves we do not owe." Please let me know what you find out. Michael Harrawood (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 14:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own Comment: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own Chris has an interesting point. My suggestion would be to head towards the vestiges of feudalism still kicking around, if not in practice, at least in theory, at the time. The liege "owes" protection, etc.,--he therefore "owns" the fief. The mutual responsibilities of the system seem to be neatly expressed in this word-play, or similarity, or whatever.
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0710, Friday, 22 September 1995. (1) From: Daniel Traister <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 18:45:52 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Lady Mary Wroth's Love's victory (2) From: <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 22:01:52 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own (3) From: Norman J. Myers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 08:03:38 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own (4) From: Donald Foster <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 10:35:07 +0100 Subj: Re: Mary Wroth (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Traister <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 18:45:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Lady Mary Wroth's Love's victory Jan Stirm asks about finding a copy of the following: AUTHOR: Wroth, Mary, Lady, ca. 1586-ca. 1640. TITLE: [Love's victory] Lady Mary Wroth's Love's victory : the Penshurst manuscript / edited by Michael G. Brennan. PUBLISHED: London : Roxburghe Club, 1988. PHYSICAL DETAILS: xiv, 238 p. : facsims., 1 port. ; 31 cm. OTHER AUTHORS: Brennan, Michael G. Roxburghe Club. OTHER TITLES: Love's victory. SUBJECTS: Wroth, Mary, Lady, ca. 1586-ca. 1640--Manuscripts-- Facsimiles. Manuscripts, English--Facsimiles. NOTES: Facsimile and edited text of the Penshurst holograph on facing pages. Includes bibliographical references. LCCN: 90-112742 Not all libraries have this volume, which was not issued in an especially numerous edition; but many do, and it may even still be found for sale in some U.K. bookselling establishments. Daniel Traister, Department of Special Collections Van Pelt-Dietrich Library, University of Pennsylvania (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 22:01:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own Comment: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own I have to admit that I do not read this listserv on a regular basis, but my friend Susan said there was a Mary Wroth question, so here I am. Michael G. Brennan edited the Penshurst copy of Love's Victory in 1988, but I am not sure how widely held it is. I know they have a copy of some sort at Ohio University according to my investigations. I assume (but perhaps I should not)that there will be a more accesible version someday. For the time being, check out what Brennan can do for you. You may also want to connect with the Brown University Women's project (I will mail you thier address as soon as I have it myself) They can either send you a copy or tell you how to get one. Good luck with your adventures with Mary Wroth. She is worth every second of research (sorry about the pun)This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. orThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman J. Myers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 08:03:38 -0400 Subject: 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own Comment: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own You might try the old Readex microprint collection "Three Centuries of English and American Drama". I would bet on something as big as UCLA (if I read your address correctly) having it in the library. Norman Myers Bowling Green State U. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Foster <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 10:35:07 +0100 Subject: Re: Mary Wroth Jan-- The original MS of Mary Wroth's *Love's Victory* is just across town from you, at the Huntington Library (MS HM 600). I've got a photographic copy of the MS, purchased from the Huntington, that I am not allowed to reproduce; but the folks over at the Huntington can accommodate you. The MS is holograph in Wroth's neat italic hand and quite easy to read. The songs from *Love's Victory* are included in Jo Roberts impeccably edited volume of *The Poems.* --Don Foster
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0709, Friday, 22 September 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 15:18:44 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0700 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Ethiop) (2) From: John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 15:24:28 -0100 Subj: SHK 6.0705 Re: Ethiop (Teaching Shakesp (3) From: Marcello Cappuzzo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 00:32:13 +0100 Subj: Re: Teaching Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 15:18:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: 6.0700 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Ethiop) Comment: Re: SHK 6.0700 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Ethiop) Since several people have accused me of using the royal we, let me explain that my "WE" had no royalist motives. (1) It was the metaphoric "we" in that I used "we" to mean "our society in general," "our culture," etc. (2) It was the ironic "we" in that I assumed that the members of this group do not hold the particular esthetic prejudices I listed -- especially since I am short, fat, and old. (3) It was the implicative "we" -- as I explained before. Now, haven't we said enough on this non-issue? Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 15:24:28 -0100 Subject: Re: Ethiop (Teaching Shakesp Comment: SHK 6.0705 Re: Ethiop (Teaching Shakesp Where does Stephanie Hughes get the idea that Shakespeare virtually created the language we speak? John Drakakis (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcello Cappuzzo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 00:32:13 +0100 Subject: Re: Teaching Shakespeare (1) The term "Ethiop" is present in more than 10 of WS's works. In certain cases--e.g., in AYL iv,iii,36 ("Such Ethiop words, blacker in their effect /Then in their countenance")--its negative value is perhaps even more explicit than in the scene of MND that has been discussed so far. (2) OED2 CD-ROM: >**Ethiop** >A. n. lit. = Ethiopian; hence, usually, a person with a black skin, a >blackamoor. Phrase, to wash an (or the) Ethiop (white): to attempt the >impossible. >1382 Wyclif Jer. xiii. 23 Yf chaunge mai an Ethiope his skyn. >... >1509 Hawes Past. Pleas. xxxvii. x, Out there flew, ryght blacke and >tedyous, A foule Ethyope. >1599 Shakes. Much Ado v. iv. 38 Ile hold my minde, were she an Ethiope. > >**wash v.** 3d >... >1596 J. Melvill Autob. & Diary (Wodrow Soc.) 375 We mein nocht to tyne tyme >in wassing of sic Moores. >1604 Marston Malcontent iv. iii. F 3, I washt an Ethiop, who for recompence >Sullyde my name. >1624 Massinger Parlt. Love ii. ii, For, being censured, Or to extenuate, or >excuse my guilt, Were but to wash an Ethiop. > >**snout n.** 2 >... >1693 Dryden, etc. Juvenal x. (1697) 250 What Ethiop Lips he has, How foul a >Snout, and what a hanging Face! (3) It seems to me that Robert Appelbaum is perfectly right in rejecting certain (too easy) solutions to the problem posed by Thomas Ellis: "Ethiop" does not indicate just an aesthetic preference--it is a word that carries a heavy and bulky burden of historical and cultural substance; it cannot be discarded as light-heartedly as someone seems to believe. Besides, are we supposed to show our students only what they can accept--or we presume they can accept--*without* exercising their critical faculties? What makes me feel uncomfortable is not the perplexity of Ellis' students; it is the laughter that preceded it (see Ellis' post of Sept 14). Thanks, Marcello Cappuzzo University of Palermo
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0708, Friday, 22 September 1995. (1) From: Tad Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 14:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Shakespeare and Uncle Scrooge (2) From: Peter Schmuckal <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 13:45:46 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0706 Re: *AYL* (3) From: Lawrence Manley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 10:41:47 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Thanks (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 14:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Shakespeare and Uncle Scrooge I don't remember the story described in the recent message (where Uncle Scrooge meets Shylock). But I'd like to set the record straight on one point. The artist in question is Carl Barks, the "duck man." If you've never read a Carl Barks adventure story, take a break and give it a try. (I have a Carl Barks Uncle Scrooge trading card pinned up in my cubicle in the upper left corner of my Folio-derived poster of Shakespeare, from a flyer advertising "Mr. William Shakespeares Documentary Life set forth by S. Schoenbaum and Printed according to the True Originall Copies." That says it all: all three now marry in an instant. I am contracted to them all.) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Schmuckal <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 13:45:46 -0700 Subject: 6.0706 Re: *AYL* Comment: Re: SHK 6.0706 Re: *AYL* Sarah Richardson recent wrote: > ... While I respect the aversion to over-conceptualized productions and >desire to make sure that concept doesn't overwhelm content, I simply don't >believe it is either possible or desirable to produce Shakespeare that isn't >conceptualized. Nor do I understand what it means to simply perform "the >words." Absolutely! I just had to respond to this post since I think it really hits the mark. As an actor who performs Shakespeare frequently, I can concure that it is impossible to just "say the words." The words themselves are only a small part of the presentation. What is is underneath the words and what the character is trying to accomplish by saying those words is what acting is all about. You must make decisions about what the character is trying to do at any given point. If the actor doesn't make choices and understand completely what is being said and why he/she is saying it, then you can bet the audience won't either. - Peter Schmuckal <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lawrence Manley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 10:41:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Thanks My thanks to all those Shaksper-ians who responded to my queries about fictional Marlowe and comic book Shakespeare. What a wealth of material! Once again this list demonstrates to me (but how to put it without bringing the various champions to the lists?) that Shakespeare is universal. Lawrence Manley Yale University
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0707, Friday, 22 September 1995. From: Sarah Richardson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 22:07:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Shakespeare's Rhetoric A friend and non-SHAKSPERian has asked me to submit a request for information regarding a project she's working on. She's interested in any information/thoughts/resources regarding the use of rhetoric in Shakespeare, especially with regards to soliloquys and monologues. Information from a performance perspective as well as a theoretical perspective would also be useful. Reading lists or syllabi would be appreciated. You may post and I'll forward or respond to her directly atThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , as you wish. Thanks... Sarah Richardson Univ. of California - IrvineThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.