1996

Restoration Culture List

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0150. Thursday, 29 February 1996.

From:           Simon Morgan-Russell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 15:47:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Restoration Culture

I would like to announce the formation of a new listserv group for the
discussion of Restoration Culture, which can include all aspects of cultural
expression in the Restoration period (however that period may be defined).
Subscribers need to send the message "SUBSCRIBE RESTORATION

[YOUR NAME]" to <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>.

Because we are a new group we have few participants, so we would appreciate any
cross-posting of this message or forwarding to potentially interested parties.

For more information e-mail me at <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>.

Simon Morgan-Russell
Department of English
Bowling Green State University

Qs: Pronunciation of "th"; Video of Duchess of Malfi

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0149. Thursday, 29 February 1996.

(1)     From:   Al Cacicedo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 14:11:54 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Pronunciation of "th"

(2)     From:   Al Cacicedo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 14:16:01 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Video of Duchess of Malfi


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Al Cacicedo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 14:11:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Pronunciation of "th"

Dear SHAKSPERians,

I am very puzzled about something that I "knew" as a graduate- school
commonplace, the pronunciation of "th" as an interdental stop rather than an
interdental fricative in words such as "Moth," the character in _LLL_, or
"Nothing," which leads to such nice ambiguities in _Much Ado_.  Is it *always*
the case that "th" is a stop rather than a fricative?  Should one pronounce
"thing" as if it were "ting"?

Hanging by a thorn (or is that "torn"?),
Al Cacicedo (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)
Albright College

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Al Cacicedo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 14:16:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Video of Duchess of Malfi

Dear SHAKSPERians,

Over a decade ago I remember seeing a BBC (I think) production of _Duchess of
Malfi_ on PBS.  This was in the Boston area, and the station was WGBH.  I've
tried to find a video of the film, but it's listed nowhere, and PBS says they
know nothing about it. Does anyone know if there is such a video (was I
hallucinating all those years ago?) and whether it's available at all in the
US?

Thanks,
Al Cacicedo (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)
Albright College

Re: Funeral Elegy

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0147. Thursday, 29 February 1996.

(1)     From:   David Joseph Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 21:04:15 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0138  Re: Funeral Elegy

(2)     From:   Harry Hill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 07:25:29 +0000
        Subj:   Re: Funeral Elegy

(3)     From:   Judy Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 11:41:06 AST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0138  Re: Funeral Elegy


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Joseph Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 21:04:15 +0100
Subject: 7.0138  Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0138  Re: Funeral Elegy

Just a few comments on the Funeral Elegy.

Richard Kennedy points out that there is no guarantee that the initials W.S.
represent the actual initials of the author.  True enough.  But the fact that
these initials occur twice -- on the title page and after the dedication --
makes it unlikely that they were a misprint, and the nature of the publication
(especially if you accept Don Foster's scenario of private publication) makes
it unclear why the author or publisher would want to be deliberately deceptive.
 The initials are just one piece of evidence, and the other evidence of
Shakespeare's hand would not change if the Elegy were totally anonymous.  It's
also theoretically possible, as Kennedy suggests, that the initials stand for
some hitherto unknown W.S. who wrote just this one thing, but I don't think
it's likely.  Whoever wrote the Elegy was an accomplished poet, and almost
certainly part of the London dramatic scene, as various kinds of internal and
external evidence indicates.  All other published elegies of 200 or more lines
between 1570 and 1630 were written by professional poets, men who made their
living with a pen.

One point I think we can all agree on, though, is the need to be prudent in
accepting any new work as Shakespeare's.  Don Foster stated it very well, I
think, in the concluding paragraph of his book on the Elegy: "Under no
circumstances should the Elegy be admitted to the Shakespeare canon, or be
included in forthcoming editions of his collected works, without having first
been subjected to the most rigorous cross-examination.  Many talented scholars
will find it quite preposterous that Shakespeare should be credited with such a
poem.  Their voice needs to be heard."  The arguments for Shakespeare's
authorship of the Elegy are indeed undergoing rigorous cross-examination, both
here on SHAKSPER and elsewhere, and only time will tell what the outcome will
be.  I should emphasize that I've mainly been clearing up misunderstandings and
defending the Elegy in general terms here on SHAKSPER, and have not really
dealt with any of the positive evidence for Shakespeare's authorship.  Much of
that can be found in Don Foster's book and Richard Abrams' recent pieces in TLS
and The Shakespeare Newsletter. This attribution is no idle whim; Foster has
been studying this poem for 13 years, and only recently became confident enough
to say publicly that he thinks Shakespeare did indeed write it.  As I've said
before, I hope people will look at the actual arguments and evidence and keep
an open mind as the cross-examination continues.

Dave Kathman
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Harry Hill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 07:25:29 +0000
Subject:        Re: Funeral Elegy

There is less here than meets the ear.

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judy Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 11:41:06 AST
Subject: 7.0138  Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0138  Re: Funeral Elegy

There is no such thing as an elegaic poem.

 Judy Kennedy
 St.Thomas University

Re: Apocrypha; Othello; Characters; Odor/Weddings

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0148. Thursday, 29 February 1996.

(1)     From:   David Joseph Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 21:04:11 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0141  Works Attributed to Shakespeare

(2)     From:   Tunis Romein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 23:38:21 -0500
        Subj:   Othello: Christian or Moslem?

(3)     From:   John Lee <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 08:57:27 GMT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0139 Re: Characters

(4)     From:   Sheryl Sawin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 29 Feb 96 13:19:49 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0134  Qs: Odor/Weddings


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Joseph Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 21:04:11 +0100
Subject: 7.0141  Works Attributed to Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0141  Works Attributed to Shakespeare

>I need to find sources which discuss works attributed erroneously to
>Shakespeare. Does anyone have any suggestions? Any help would be appreciated.
>
>Michael Norman
>University of North Carolina at Greensboro

There's been a fair amount written about the Shakespeare Apocrypha; a good
place to start is C.F. Tucker Brooke's 1908 edition of *The Shakespeare
Apocrypha*.  William Kozlenko also edited a book in 1974 called *Disputed Plays
of William Shakespeare*, and there's other stuff out there.  Some of this deals
with plays which many scholars think Shakespeare wrote at least part of (e.g.
Sir Thomas More, Edward III), and some of it deals with plays that were
attributed to him at some point but which virtually nobody believes he wrote
(e.g. Locrine, Sir John Oldcastle, The Puritan). Also, if you can find back
issues of *The Shakespeare Newsletter*, that has had a lot over the years about
various works attributed to Shakespeare with arguments pro and con.

Dave Kathman
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tunis Romein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 23:38:21 -0500
Subject:        Othello: Christian or Moslem?

Iago says this of Othello in his last soliloquy of Act II, the one beginning
"And what's he then that says I play the villain. . . . "

                And then for her
To win the Moor--were 't to renounce his baptism,
All seals and symbols of redeemed sin--
His soul is so enfettered to her love
That she may make, unmake, do what she list . . . .

So Iago evidently considers Othello a Christian.

Also, judging by Othello's words just before his suicide, he couldn't be a
Moslem.  He speaks of once killing a "turbaned Turk":

I took by th' throat the circumcised dog
And smote him, thus.  [He stabs himself.]

That's not the kind of language one Moslem would use to refer to another.

Tunis Romein
Charleston, SC  USA
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Lee <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 08:57:27 GMT
Subject: 7.0139 Re: Characters
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0139 Re: Characters

> What Bowlen, and others seem unable or
> unwilling to concede is that their very notion of "character" imposed on a
> Shakespearean text produces an anachronism.

As John Drakakis says, the notion of 'character' lies at the heart of this
debate. However, whether or not 'character' (i.e. the modern notion of
character as interior and self-constituted inner life, as opposed to the
Elizabethan notion of character as appearance, qv complexion) is anachronistic
is a debate, not a self-evident fact.  As the modern vocabulary of meaning
bound up with the modern sense of character is absent from Shakespearean plays,
the argument for anachronism is nice and direct.  To argue the reverse brings
us to the question of whether a concept can exist before the vocabulary exists
to express it.  One critic who examines this question directly, and comes to
the conclusion that there is an inner life to which our modern terminologies
bound up with character may be intelligibly applied is Anne Ferry, _The Inward
Language: Sonnets of Wyatt, Sidney, Shakespeare and Donne_ (1983).  I would
also have thought Joel Altman's more recent _Shakespeare's Perjured Eye_
supports this position, finding Shakespeare to have instituted the
'subjectivity effects' from which modern 'character' is created.  This debate,
rightly, could run and run.

One consensus that might be reached, is that -- as John Drakakis suggests --
'character' should not be taught as a given, but rather historicized, and shown
to be a complex word whose meaning has developed and changed, greatly, over
time.

Yours,
John Lee

(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sheryl Sawin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 29 Feb 96 13:19:49 EST
Subject: 7.0134  Qs: Odor/Weddings
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0134  Qs: Odor/Weddings

In response to Michael Best's inquiries:

1. There seems to be a widespread belief that the Elizabethans did not wash,
and that they (the nobility at any rate) covered their bodily smells with
perfume rather than bathing. The poorer classes presumably simply stank. Is
there any evidence to support this assertion?

2. Did the marriage rituals of the time conclude with some kind of charivari --
the awakening of the bedded couple with noise or other kinds of celebration /
torment? Again, I've seen this referred to, but never with any kind of
contemporary reference.

--------------
1.  I'm not sure about the odor thing... but try the multi volume series on
Private Life  (the volume on the Renaissance), put out a few years back.

2.  As for the marriage rituals, George Puttenham describes something like
what you are after (making noise outside the room, throwing walnuts on the
ground and the like) in the _Arte of English Poesy_.  I THINK it is in book
two--although I haven't read it in a while.

Hope these admittedly vague suggestions help.

Sheryl Sawin
St. Joseph's University, PA

Re: Educational Videos

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0146. Thursday, 29 February 1996.

(1)     From:   Laura Blanchard <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 22:44:29 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0140 Re: Educational Videos

(2)     From:   Ian H. Doescher <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 23:07:18 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Educational Videos

(3)     From:   Shannon Murray <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 18:28:22 -0400 (AST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0140  Re: Educational Videos


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Laura Blanchard <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 22:44:29 -0500
Subject: 7.0140 Re: Educational Videos
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0140 Re: Educational Videos

I've misplaced the direct mail piece right now, but there's a huge set of
videos by Dartmouth's Peter Saccio -- something like sixteen hours of lectures
-- available for a paltry $189.00. If all else fails, I'm sure Professor Saccio
could tell you where to get his tapes.

However, I think the freshman was right -- at least, I remember listening to
Laurence Olivier on 78s while in the second grade and being entranced.

Regards,
Laura Blanchard

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ian H. Doescher <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996 23:07:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Educational Videos

To everyone on the SHAKSPER conference:

By the way, I'm really sorry if that last e-mail about the educational videos
sounded really snotty.  I'm really not an egotistical Yale student, and in
rereading my posting about the videos, I realize I may have come off wrong.  It
is simply a pet peeve of mine that people do not think high schoolers and
college students have the ability to understand Shakespeare.

Ian Doescher

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Shannon Murray <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 29 Feb 1996 18:28:22 -0400 (AST)
Subject: 7.0140  Re: Educational Videos
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0140  Re: Educational Videos

Mike Field and David Maier asked about educational videos for a Shakespeare
class.  The two I have and use are "Using the Verse," led by John Barton, and
"Speaking Shakespearean Verse," led by Trevor Nunn. (One is shown half way
through Shakespeare I, the other through Shakespeare II.)  Both talk about
Shakespeare blank verse using plentiful illustrations demonstrated by RSC
actors such as Jane Lapotaire, Ian MacKellan, David Suchet, and Michael
Wiliams.  I think the Nunn one is better, but both give students a good sense
of how to look at iambic pentameter not as an obstacle but as "clues" about the
dramatic situation.  While I have some trouble holding attention for fifty
minutes on the subject of prosody, these videos don't, and my students--many
Star Trek fans--pay particular attention to everything Patrick Stewart says.

There is a whole series of them, I believe, sold through the
Something-or-others for the Humanities catalogues.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.