1996

Re: Payne Roet

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0064.  Thursday, 25 January 1996.

(1)     From:   Peter Herman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 08:55:18 -0500
        Subj:   Re: Payne Roet

(2)     From:   Valerie Gager <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 13:25:00 -0700
        Subj:   Payne Roet


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Herman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 08:55:18 -0500
Subject:        Re: Payne Roet

Thanks to everyone for their help on this topic. Your information significantly
helped and I'm deeply appreciative for your contributions.

Peter C. Herman
Dept. of English
GSU

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Valerie Gager <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 13:25:00 -0700
Subject:        Payne Roet

To supplement the information provided by David Hale in his response to Peter
Herman's query, a good source of further background on Sir Gilles de Roet
(`Paon' means `usher') and his four children is Donald K. Howard's *Chaucer:
His Life, His Works, His World* (New York: Fawcett, 1987).  Howard also
identifies more connections between the Chaucer family and John of Gaunt,
including the rumour that Thomas Chaucer was actually John of Gaunt's bastard
son by Philippa Roet, Geoffrey Chaucer's wife (p. 94).

Perhaps the family tree in Speght's sixteenth-century edition represents a
variation on `Tudor myth'-making.

Re: The Sonnets. All of 'em

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0063.  Thursday, 25 January 1996.

(1)     From:   Nina Rulon-Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 24 Jan 96 09:59:48 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0062  The Sonnets. All of 'em

(2)     From:   Ted Nellen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 11:09:35 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em

(3)     From:   Joe Shea <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 07:13:21 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em

(4)     From:   Terry Ross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 10:41:41 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em

(5)     From:   Michael Saenger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 12:46:41 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets, V & A

(6)     From:   Nora Kreimer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 19:29:04 ARG
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0062  The Sonnets. All of 'em

(7)     From:   Catherine Fitzmaurice <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 23:14:44 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Nina Rulon-Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 24 Jan 96 09:59:48 EST
Subject: 7.0062  The Sonnets. All of 'em
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0062  The Sonnets. All of 'em

For Eric Armstrong on the Sonnets:

For "hot" and "new" (new since Booth, at any rate) work on the Sonnets, try
Joseph Pequigney's _Such Is My Love: A Study of Shakespeare's Sonnets_, U
Chicago P, 1985. Very controversial homoerotic interpretation. I'd be
interested to hear others' responses to this book. I found it convincing.

Nina Rulon-Miller
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ted Nellen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 11:09:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em

Many years ago 1986 I read a neat book by G Hammond titled The Reader and
Shakespeare's young man sonnets.  Then I had a high school Shakespeare class
perform, read, present the sonnets a la Spoon River Anthology. Different
methods of presentation included traditional and rap and chorus.  Some read in
the traditional style, some leaned towards a rap presentaiton which worked
quite well and then some sang in a chorus type presentaiton.  I still have some
of my colleagues speak of how successful it was.  The kids absolutely loved it.
 Now that is high school and it was not intended for a scholarly audience.  I
was looking to make Shakespeare approachable to high school kids.  It worked
and it was actually fun.

Cheers,
Ted

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joe Shea <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 07:13:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em

I love the sonnets, and have done some of them in readings on manyt occasions
over the past 30 years.  I would say that they require a minute each, and a
five-second pause.  You then have a roughly three-hour performance, which is
not out of line with expectations for an evening at the theater.  They offer
any audience that can understand them a great deal, and their rhythm and pacing
can present enromous opportunities for creative expression.  A telling
performance would also sense Shakespeare's exhaustion as a poet in this form
when he begins to repeat himself, and acknowledge that even the greatest mind
in literary history had limits.

Best,
Joe Shea

(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terry Ross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 10:41:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em

The sonnets taken together are 2155 lines--about as long as one of the short
plays (between "A Midsummer Night's Dream" and "Two Gentlemen of Verona" in
length).  It should take you two hours or so.

(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Saenger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 12:46:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 7.0062 The Sonnets, V & A
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets, V & A

I have not seen the sonnets performed, but I have seen Venus and Adonis staged,
in Glasgow, 1992.  It was very interesting, and I think it was well worth a
try.  The interesting thing, for me, is that when I saw Shakespeare's
non-dramatic work on stage it made me long for the flat page and the flexible
tones it creates, whereas we are all very accustomed to having the inverse
feeling; reading a play and longing for a sense of its dramatic impact.  For
instance, it was impossible to laugh at either Adonis or Venus, because it came
off as a melencholy love tragedy.  Don't get me wrong; I would love to see, by
its notable absense, what we're missing by staging poetry.

(6)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Nora Kreimer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 19:29:04 ARG
Subject: 7.0062  The Sonnets. All of 'em
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0062  The Sonnets. All of 'em

I think that having the complete sequence of the sonnets is a brilliant idea. I
have taught several postgraduate courses and held seminars, when I wouldn't
have thought of eliminating one.

I think that the fundamental issue concerning the complete 154 sonnets is to
keep the sequence of the Q of 1609, because, when you do, a wonderful drama
emerges. I feel that the autobiographical approach to the sonnets is the only
way. Naturally, there will be others, who will hold exactly the opposite view.

There is a book I'm very fond of quoting, which my students and I find very
useful. It's a relatively oldish one, but irreplaceable in my eyes:

Robert Giroux, 1982,  THE BOOK KNOWN AS Q: A CONSIDERATION OF SHAKESPEARE'S
        SONNETS, A Vintage Book, USA. This edition 1983.

What I find so interesting about this work is a division of the traditional
sequence into 12 subgroups, occasionally linking sonnets that antiphonally echo
one another, or follow up an idea into one another, etc.

Hope you find this info useful. If you need further comments, don't hesitate to
contact me.

Nora Kreimer
Ugarteche 2883   1A
1425 Buenos Aires
Argentina
Voice: 801-3486
Internet: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

(7)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Catherine Fitzmaurice <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 23:14:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0062 The Sonnets. All of 'em

Eric, I did a compilation of 39 sonnets in Los Angeles with the late Duncan
(Bill) Ross and the late Paul Shenar which I chose, ordered, directed, and
acted with them in. It took about an hour, and was also broadcast on KPFK. Ask
me if you want more details.

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

Re: Roet; Othello Screenplay; RSC *MND*;

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0061. Wednesday, 24 January 1996.

(1)     From:   Moray McConnachie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 15:03:11 +0000 (GMT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0953 Qs: Payne Roet

(2)     From:   Christine Mack Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 23 Jan 96 09:46:16 -0600
        Subj:   Othello Screenplay Online

(3)     From:   Heather Stephenson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 10:51:56 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: RSC's Midsummer ND

(4)     From:   Susan Mather <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 00:40:30 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0054  Re: Cross-Dressing


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Moray McConnachie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 15:03:11 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: 6.0953 Qs: Payne Roet
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0953 Qs: Payne Roet

I too saw these claims in Speght's edition. However, I don't see much
incredible about it. If you go far enough back it is quite possible to find
common ancestors: remember that Speght is only tracing the common line, not the
complete thing. Of course, Speght may have invented the whole thing, as you
imply. But that doesn't mean he was wrong. I'm afraid I didn't find out who
Payne Roet was either, but I only looked in the most cursory fashion. I assumed
that Roet would be spent Rowett in the usual modern sources.

Yours,
Moray McConnachie

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Christine Mack Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 23 Jan 96 09:46:16 -0600
Subject:        Othello screenplay online

The Castle Rock website for the new film version of *Othello* has just added
the screenplay to their site. The URL is http://othello.guide.com. The homepage
indicates that they plan to continue to add information to the site over time.
Happy surfing!

Chris Gordon
University of Minnesota

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Heather Stephenson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 10:51:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Re: RSC's Midsummer ND

Can anyone tell me if the original cast is in the travelling production of the
RSC's Midsummer Night's Dream?  I saw the opening night performance in
Stratford two years ago, and have a profound admiration of Gonet's and
Barrett's talents, as well as a very unscholarly crush on Stephens.

(However, I completely agree with whomever it was who suggested that this
production felt like a "warm-up" for the actors' larger roles that season).

Thanks!
Heather Stephenson
Georgetown University

(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Susan Mather <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996 00:40:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 7.0054  Re: Cross-Dressing
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0054  Re: Cross-Dressing

It's Susan Mather, again--Here's a list of three articles I found lying on my
floor from last semester.  One I used twice--Phyllis Rackin's "Androgyny,
Mimesis, and the Marriage of the Boy Heroine on the English Renaissance
Stage"--very good, and Dr. Rackin happens to be a member of this listserv.  Jan
Kott's article, "The Gender of Rosalind,"--I think in Theatre Quarterly--was
very good--again, on androgyny.  Finally, Jean E. Howard's "Crossdressing, The
Theatre, and Gender Struggle in Early Modern England"--SQ.  Wait!  Laura
Levine, "Men in Women's Clothing: Antitheatricality and Effeminization from
1579-1642."  Criticism, 28 [1986], 121-43.

Sorry, I can't find the actual bibliography.--
Sketches by Suz

The Sonnets. All of 'em

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0062. Wednesday, 24 January 1996.

From:           Eric Armstrong <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 18:57:01 -0500
Subject:        The Sonnets. All of 'em

Hi everyone,

I am dreaming of doing a performance of ALL the sonnets in one evening. Has
anyone ever seen this done? I am aware that Simon Callow in _Being An Actor_
tells how he did the complete sonnets based on some new numbering that had just
been published.

I am wondering how long it tends to take and how interesting it is (Sorry - its
got to be brilliant - its Shakespeare, isn't it?).I am also wondering if anyone
who has any particular interest in the sonnets might share anything  juicy
and"new" or "hot" about them. I have been reading them from Booth. Anyone else
who I should really delve into? Why? (I really like the Booth).

If there are too many for one night, anyone got any suggestions as to which
ones to do to make a well rounded theatrical evening?

I must admit that I am mildly terrified by the thought of this undertaking
(which seems almost a good enough reason in itself).

Hope to hear some good debate on this one,

Eric

P.S. Does anyone know Jean-Christophe Mayer (in France) 's email address?

[Editor's Note: Please respond privately to the above e-mail address request.
--HMC]

Re: Development of Individualism

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0060. Wednesday, 24 January 1996.

(1)     From:   Chris J. Fassler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 14:31:51 -0500
        Subj:   Development of Individualism

(2)     From:   Stephanie Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 16:09:31 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: Development of Individualism

(3)     From:   W.  L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 15:32:17 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0037  Re: Development of Individualism


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris J. Fassler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 14:31:51 -0500
Subject:        Development of Individualism

Jonathan Sawday's comments (SHK 7.0055), including a (to me) obscure reference
to past dialogues on Cartesian fish, prompt me to attempt again to convey this
message on this thread:

1)  When Gertrude expresses doubt about the player queen's sincerity, if not
veracity, she says (I think):  "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

2)  If I remember what I learned when I studied Russian, "methinks" is a
reflexive construction, a not uncommon grammatical type I would suppose, more
common in earlier English than modern.

3)  DeCartes wrote, "Cogito, ergo sum" (I have no idea how to punctuate this).

4)  What happens to our notion of self, individuality, etc. if we imagine this
most recognizable Cartesian claim translated as "Methinks I am"--or some such
Bottomian phrase?

5)  Is there any good work out there about the evolution of English and its
effects on the self in language?  (I vaguely remember a job candidate coming to
my alma mater and discussing the introduction of "was now" into the novel, but
I can't remember any conclusions or speculations that might be germaine.)

6)  BTW, while I do not share the reverence for Shakespeare and everything
Shakespearean that is common on this list, I must question Jonathan Sawday's
great confidence that "the historical Shakespeare" must have shared Spenser's
genocidal contempt for the Irish.  The evidence seems to me, at best,
insufficient with regard to Shakespeare in particular, and the view seems to me
hardly to have been universal (though perhaps nearly so) in early modern
England.

Curiously,

--Chris Fassler
  Winthrop University

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephanie Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 16:09:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Re: Development of Individualism

Jonathan Sawday;

Thanks for the interesting response to my reference to "stone age" communities.
I agree with everything you said. In my use of the term I was (hopefully) not
exhibiting developmental snobbery. That I feel no such snobbery I try to
express by putting quotes around the term "civilization". I am a believer in
the symbol of the snake eating its own tail (alas, can't draw it here) for the
"progress" of human development. What we gain at the head we lose at the tail.
Penelope's web is another good image. What is woven at one end is unravelled at
the other, and so on and on, for eternity. We can learn a great deal from stone
age communities, not only tips on how to live more happily and less frantically
in the present, but as a guide to what we once were. (I use the term "stone age
community", but what I really mean is communities that have changed minimally
since the stone age in comparison with ours.)

My original point was that the concept of "individualism" arises out of a sense
of separateness that only comes to a society when it fragments at a certain
stage of "civilization," and that this "stage" repeats as the level of
"civilization" rises and falls with the rise and fall of cultures. The ancient
Greeks had this concept, so did the Romans. With the fall of the Roman empire
and the subsequent return to a less "civilized" culture, this concept
disappeared, then rose again towards the end of the renaissance, as society
again reached the level of fragmentation. Of course I could be altogether in
left field on this, but this was my point.

You're right, we're way off the track of Shakespeare here. Didn't it start with
Jesus Cora commenting on a possible connection between the soliloquies and a
rise in a sense of the individual?

Stephanie Hughes

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W.  L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996 15:32:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 7.0037  Re: Development of Individualism
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0037  Re: Development of Individualism

Robert Appelbaum writes (cold and lonely):

>Recent work by Carol Walker Bynum (sorry, but I don't have the title in front
>of me) shows that there was in fact an idiosyncratic valuation of the self or
>the person in Christian culture prior to the Renaissance, especially with
>regard to a doctrine of the individual body -- that body which was held to be
>in an essential attachment to the immortal soul in life and death alike.  We
>will not find this doctrine, however, in (say) Confucian culture; nor will we
>find it in Proust, or in most of the songs that Madonna sings about her
>personae.

Let me suggest that he's looking in the wrong place.  Ask a Jehovah's Witness
about the connection of the soul with the body, and you will get an answer
that's straight out of John Milton who held that there was no soul apart from
the body (to put it crudely). The tradition survives, make of it what you will.

Of course, one should make as many distinctions as possible, and remain as
skeptical as one may -- about everything, including changes in the way "we"
perceive ourselves, the way technology affects individualism, and so on.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.