Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1995 :: June ::
Ed 3; Miss-Begetting; Shakesbear; Directing; Newsgroup
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0473.  Monday, 12 June 1995.
 
(1)     From:   W.L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 22:47:12 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0470  Q: *The Reign of King Edward III*
 
(2)     From:   Chris Stroffolino <LS0796@ALBNYVMS.BITNET>
        Date:   Sunday, 11 Jun 1995 23:14:20 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0431  Q: Miss-Begetting
 
(3)     From:   Elizabeth Blye Schmitt <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 11 Jun 1995 14:42:43 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0455 Re: William Shakesbear
 
(4)     From:   David Schalkwyk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 12 Jun 1995 09:34:09 SAST-2
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0463  Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing
 
(5)     From:   Robert C. Baum <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 12 Jun 95 14:01:05 EDT
        Subj:   additional Shakespeare list--
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W.L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 22:47:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 6.0470  Q: *The Reign of King Edward III*
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0470  Q: *The Reign of King Edward III*
 
<i>Edward III</i> is still considered by some to be (in part or wholly) by
Shakespeare. Kenneth Muir has an essay on the topic; Proudfoot has explored the
idea, and Karl Wentersdorf's Ph.D. thesis is on the authorship of the play
(1960). Eliot Slater, <i>The Problem of The Reign of King Edward III: A
Statistical Approach</i> (Cambridge UP, 1988), is well worth consulting. I'm a
believer.
 
Yours, Bill (The Believer) Godshalk
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris Stroffolino <LS0796@ALBNYVMS.BITNET>
Date:           Sunday, 11 Jun 1995 23:14:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 6.0431  Q: Miss-Begetting
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0431  Q: Miss-Begetting
 
This doesn't entirely relate to Gareth Euridge's initial question concerning
Beaumont and Fletcher's line about that the better the sex the more likely the
child is to be a boy---whether there were prdemoniant believes about such (or
whether that tells us much about the kind of person--Jacamo-"a buff
soldier"--is), but I am reading W.T.Mcrary's book about Shakespeare's comedies
and in talking about erotic transvetism in Shakespeare's plays he brings up
Sidney's Pyrocles as a man who disguises himself as a woman---of course, we
never see this in Shakespeare (unless we take the actor-character transvetism
as more important--a "hidden meaning"--than we do the on-stage reverse
transvetism)---If Shakespeare's moves are "more conservative" than Sidney's in
the sense that it enacts ONLY the staged-relation, that of woman to man, and
thus falls into the "men as mere observer" ....OR should we posit the
meta-dimension of the disguise as a way of calling attention that MAN IS THE
THING ITSELF (as either Timons or LEAR puts it). Nonetheless, the social and
political world IN Shakespeare's plays is played out by the woman as man 9and
this meaning is only undercut by the more-meta meaning of man as woman if we
don't consider the possibility that Shakespeare was trying to expose the
difference between "life" and "the theatre"--- The fantasy of the male world
expressed by Beaumont and Fletcher and by Shakespeare was NOT queasy--(at least
compared to many more recent apologists, who are based more on fear than on
lust if not love)--It may even be that the "lascivious wails" Caesar complained
of Antony indulging in 9as he longed for the days of Antony's more physical,
spectacular "horse piss drinking"--which certainly seems more "lascivious" than
anything we ever see Antony and Cleo doing---people watching, etc--), that
these "wails" are really a debauchery of WORDS---like Berowne letting of the
women into the tent---Oh--I guess i got off the topic--- But this, too, is a
kind of procreation myth--a kind of "birthing"--the parthenogenesis,
etc---Chris Stroffolino
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Elizabeth Blye Schmitt <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 11 Jun 1995 14:42:43 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: 6.0455 Re: William Shakesbear
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0455 Re: William Shakesbear
 
Must add my  two cents worth to the Shakesbear discussion as I have been an
avid collecter of NA Bears for almost 10 years. It is true that once a bear is
"retired" the value on it skyrockets. Most of my collection are the smaller
Muffy Vanderbears--some of which have gone for over $700 at auction. The
numbers listed earlier with "best offer" are your best bet, but don't expect
less than $500 to be asked. NAB collecters are a serious bunch.
 
I, too, have a Queen Elizabear. She is protected by a special BeefEater bear
dubbed Edmund Blackadder.
 
Oh, the Shakesbear was still available as a XMAS ornament last year (about 3"
high) and at one time on a NAB coffee mug. (Have both.)
 
Beary much amused by the discussion,
Elizabear Schmitt
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Schalkwyk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 12 Jun 1995 09:34:09 SAST-2
Subject: 6.0463  Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0463  Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing
 
Robert Weimann (who was mentioned recently as a Marxist critic worth reading--a
position I fully endorse--) suggests that there are two different traditions of
acting and representation at work in _Hamlet_ specifically and in the
Elizabethan theatre as a whole, and that much of the dynamic complexity of the
theatre arises from a tension between these two traditions.  Hamlet, to put it
crudely, as Weimann does not, represents a humanist conception of acting as
mimesis--as the representation of something beyond the actor which directs and
controls his (sic) actions and speech.  The other tradition is the non-
mimetic, self-expressive mode of popular ritual and festival, and it is
precisely this expressive tradition that Hamlet _opposes_ in his advice to the
players to speak no more than is set down for them. For this reason alone,
Hamlet's advice cannot be taken at face value as representative of general
theatrical theory or practice.  Weimann goes on to show, in _Shakespeare and
the Popular Tradition in the Theatre_ (Johns Hopkins), how the tension and
interaction of these two modes of representation inform _Hamlet_ itself, and
especially, Hamlet as chracter and actor, so that Hamlet "himself" at times
contradicts "his" own advice.
 
I have mentioned this before, but it's seems worth repeating. It will come as
no surprise to anyone who has any experience of a theatre that, both materially
and philosophically, is not tied to Western, metropolitan conceptions of
staging, casting, writing, or directing  that one could "produce" a complex
piece of theatre without a director, or even a writer.  Black South African
actors have been doing it for years.  In a new South Africa in which pressure
is being placed on those teaching "metropolitan" literature like Shakespeare to
"get relevant" it strikes me that Shakespeare and his theatre is in many ways
materially, culturally and ideologically far closer to people living in
township slums than those who make annual trips to Stratford keep up with "the
Bard".
 
David Schalkwyk
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robert C. Baum <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 12 Jun 95 14:01:05 EDT
Subject:        additional Shakespeare list--
 
--- John Cox wrote:
I don't see why you want an additional list devoted to Shakespeare.  There
are obvious advantages to a moderated list, and SHAKSPER is an excelelnt
forum.  I need more explanation as to why you think an unmoderated list
is necessary.
--- end of quoted material ---
 
Here, here!
 
An on-line (USENET) newsgroup would be one thing, but a mailbox full of "Could
you please answer this question so I can get an 'A' on my term paper?"
questions and "Uh-huh; uh-huh. . .I really like Hamlet" would be awfully
tedious.  SHAKSPER arranges the downloads and eliminates such nonesense.
SHAKSPER is the only subscription I have held for more than one week simply
because of the superior organization and lumped downloads.  Therefore, when I'm
working and have my blitzmail up I don't have twenty random messages coming in
over an hour long period with seemingly endless irrelivancies.
 
Unmoderated downloads from random posters are (IMHO) a disaster and cause more
clutter and wasted disk space for all.  I would certainly support a USENET
shakespeare group; but in a way that would be redundant because I have been
extremely satisfied with the discussions and information and reference sharing
on SHAKSPER.
 
--Bob

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.