1996

World Shakespeare Conference

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0189.  Friday, 8 March 1996.

From:           Martin Zacks <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 7 Mar 1996 23:53:04 -0800
Subject:        World Shakespeare Conference

Los Angeles Public Library.

    April 9, Tuesday
Sixth World Shakespeare Conference presents: "A Century of Shakespeare on
Screen." Rare Shakespeare films screening throughout the afternoon and evening
including, Othello, Germany, 1922; Macbeth, USSR/Wales, 1992; Hamlet, A Drama
of Vengeance, Germany, 1920. 1:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

    April 10, Wednesday
Continued: King Lear, USA, 1916; Twelfth Night, USSR, 1955; The Bad Sleep Well
(Warui Yatsu Hodo Yoku Numuru), Japan, 1960. 1:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

    April 13, Saturday
Continued: Taming of the Shrew, USA, 1950; The Tragedy of Othello: The Moor of
Venice, Morocco/Italy, 1952; A Midsummer Night's Dream, Spain, 1984. 11:00 a.m.
- 5:00 p.m.

"All programs are free of charge and in the main auditorium of the downtown
Central Library."

Chaste Maid in Cheapside Production

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0188.  Friday, 8 March 1996.

From:           Ed Gieskes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 8 Mar 1996 09:57:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Chaste Maid in Cheapside Production

Willing Suspension Productions presents:

Thomas Middleton's _A Chaste Maid in Cheapside_

Directed by Andrew Hartley and Kirk Melnikoff
Assistant Director Jill Orofino

        Friday, March 29 @ 8PM
        Saturday, March 30 @ 2PM and 7:30PM
        Sunday, March 31 @ 2PM and 7:30PM

Performances will be held at Boston University's School for the Arts, 855
Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA, Room 104.

Willing Suspension is a company founded by Boston University English Department
graduate students for a production of Middleton's _Revenger's Tragedy_ in 1993.
 Since then, we have mounted successful productions of Ben Jonson's _The
Alchemist_ and, last year, Thomas Kyd's _The Spanish Tragedy_.  The company is
dedicated to performing non-Shakespearean early modern drama.

For more information: email Kirk Melnikoff (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) with a mailing
address and we will send flyers and additional information.

New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: Foster's Edited

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0186.  Friday, 8 March 1996.

From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, March 8, 1996
Subject:        New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: Foster's Edited Version of FE

As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve Don Foster's edited text of "A Funeral
Elegy." (FUNERAL ELEGY) from the SHAKSPER Fileserver.  What had been made
available previously was an archive-copy in which all ellisions have been
expanded, and substantive errors have been introduced.

To retrieve "A Funeral Elegy," send a one-line mail message (without a subject
line) to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., reading "GET FUNERAL ELEGY".

Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER
Fileserver, please contact the editor at <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> or
<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>.

PS: There is still a problem that affects some addresses -- my own included --
that causes mail sent to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. to "loop" and be rejected
because of an excess of "hops."  Should your request for this file generate such
an error, please use the following address: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

*******************************************************************************
W[illiam] S[hakespeare], "A Funeral Elegy."  Edited by Donald W. Foster from
W.S., A Funerall Elegye in memory of the late vertuous Maister William Peeter
(London: G. Eld for T. Thorpe, 1612).  [4,600 words.]   Common nouns
capitalized and italicized in Q are here capitalized but not italicized;
italicized quotations in Q are rendered in quotation marks.

Participial endings and ellisions may be normalized for use with a private
text archive.  DWF (1/15/96)


                   TO MASTER JOHN PETER
                  of Bowhay in Devon, Esquire.

The love I bore to your brother, and will do to his memory, hath
crav'd from me this last duty of a friend; I am herein but a
second to the privilege of Truth, who can warrant more in his
behalf than I undertook to deliver.  Exercise in this kind I will
little affect, and am less addicted to, but there must be miracle
in that labor which, to witness my remembrance to this departed
gentleman, I would not willingly undergo.  Yet whatsoever is here
done, is done to him, and to him only. For whom and whose sake I
will not forget to remember any friendly respects to you, or to
any of those that have lov'd him for himself, and himself for his
deserts.

                                                                      W. S.

                        A FUNERAL ELEGY

     Since Time, and his predestinated end,
     Abridg'd the circuit of his hopeful days,
     Whiles both his Youth and Virtue did intend
     The good endeavors of deserving praise,
5    What memorable monument can last
     Whereon to build his never-blemish'd name
     But his own worth, wherein his life was grac'd-
     Sith as [that] ever he maintain'd the same?
     Oblivion in the darkest day to come,
10   When sin shall tread on merit in the dust,
     Cannot rase out the lamentable tomb
     Of his short-liv'd deserts; but still they must,
     Even in the hearts and memories of men,
     Claim fit Respect, that they, in every limb
15   Rememb'ring what he was, with comfort then
     May pattern out one truly good, by him.
     For he was truly good, if honest care
     Of harmless conversation may commend
     A life free from such stains as follies are,
20   Ill recompensed only in his end.
     Nor can the tongue of him who lov'd him least
     (If there can be minority of love
     To one superlative above the rest
     Of many men in steady faith) reprove
25   His constant temper, in the equal weight
     Of thankfulness and kindness: Truth doth leave
     Sufficient proof, he was in every right
     As kind to give, as thankful to receive.
     The curious eye of a quick-brain'd survey
30   Could scantly find a mote amidst the sun
     Of his too-short'ned days, or make a prey
     Of any faulty errors he had done-
     Not that he was above the spleenful sense
     And spite of malice, but for that he had
35   Warrant enough in his own innocence
     Against the sting of some in nature bad.
     Yet who is he so absolutely blest
     That lives encompass'd in a mortal frame,
     Sometime in reputation not oppress'd
40   By some in nothing famous but defame?
     Such in the By-path and the Ridgeway lurk
     That leads to ruin, in a smooth pretense
     Of what they do to be a special work
     Of singleness, not tending to offense;
45   Whose very virtues are, not to detract
     Whiles hope remains of gain (base fee of slaves),
     Despising chiefly men in fortunes wrack'd-
     But death to such gives unrememb'red graves.
       Now therein liv'd he happy, if to be
50     Free from detraction happiness it be.

Re: Character; About This List; Parodies

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0187.  Friday, 8 March 1996.

(1)     From:   Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 08 Mar 1996 10:31:01 +0200
        Subj:   RE: SHK 7.0136 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and

(2)     From:   Charles S. Ross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 8 Mar 1996 08:45:45 -0500
        Subj:   Re:  SHK 7.0178  Re: About This List

(3)     From:   John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 8 Mar 1996 00:54:01 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0183 Q: Performance of Parodies


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 08 Mar 1996 10:31:01 +0200
Subject: 7.0136 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and
Comment:        RE: SHK 7.0136 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and

>I had thought that the "character" debate had really run itself into the
>ground, and was determined to exercise as much restraint as I could, lest I
>diorientate Steve Urkowitz more than is good for him. But Clark Bowlen's
>commnet crystallizes what a number of other contributors to the debate have
>edged towards: that there is clearly a confusion between reading a
>Shakespearean text, and the demands that actors might place upon it.
>
>Bowlen argues that "Playwrights must leave room for actors to create the
>emotional life of the characters within themselves out of their own flesh and
>feelings and imagination".  The most eloquent defence of this approach is, of
>course John Russell Brown's Shakespeare's Plays in Performance (1966).  What
>is, of course missing from assertions such as that of Bowlen that the actor
>suppies the same kinds of information about a "character" that a novelist
>supplies by other means, is any kind of statement about what it IS that is
>supplied.  The tacit assumption seems to be that either "Shakespeare" is the
>"character" behind his texts which it is the hermeneutic task of the critic to
>discover, or it is "the actor" who provides the insight into "character" out of
>her/his "own flesh and feelings and imagination".  In either case, whether the
>resource for this is Shakespeare's "genius", or the actor's inner life, the
>problem still remains: where do the "feelings and imagination" come from.
>Bowlen speaks as though they have some kind of independent existence amenable
>to empirical study.  My point is that like the concept of "character" they
>emanate from a constellation of ideological assumptions.  Simply to assert that
>a Shakespearean text (agumented by the actor's performance) is doing the same
>as a novelist but by another means exacerbates the very essentialist knot that
>I would like to see untied. That, of course, says nothing about the assumption
>that a Shakespearean theatrical representation is the means by which we locate
>some form of unchanging human nature, hence the actor can share with the
>dramatist the task of unfolding to the spectator what everybody always knew
>about the inner lives of individuals.  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.

No, I cannot agree that it is just a toss up between an elusive person called
William or a boyant actor that we have when we look for character in the plays.
There is this aspect of the Luthern Hamlet or of Plutarch's Caesar: that the
characer is built up carefully layer upon historic layer with a great deal of
empathy and insight.  How does a poet empathize with someone he distains and
whose acts are abhorrent to him? It is too important to be left to the chance
actor. He studies more. He delves deeper. Iago becomes the disguised egocentric
pitting himself against all the "clowns" that he encounters. He is the
trickster of the Tarot pack and he is the representative of the collective
racial ego. The whole self in the middle is absent. Shakespeare is Jungian more
than Jung as he is Freudian more than Freud.

                                                            Florence Amit

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Charles S. Ross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 8 Mar 1996 08:45:45 -0500
Subject: 7.0178  Re: About This List
Comment:        Re:  SHK 7.0178  Re: About This List

I oppose splitting the list but I am in favor of brevity. Prof. William Ringler
used to say that scholars have a duty to say more and write less. This is
terrible advice for things like tenure and academic promotion, I have found,
but it strikes me as just right for SHAKSPER.

Charles Ross

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 8 Mar 1996 00:54:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 7.0183 Q: Performance of Parodies
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0183 Q: Performance of Parodies

'Goodnight Desdemona' is being revived in Toronto right now but I do not
believe it was ever a video.

Toronto comedians Wayne and Shuster did 'Julius Caesar' on the Ed Sullivan show
in the 50's.

Are you looking strictly for videos?

John Ramsay
Welland, Ontario, Canada
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: Funeral Elegy

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0185.  Friday, 8 March 1996.

(1)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 07 Mar 1996 21:10:14 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0172  Re: Funeral Elegy

(2)     From:   Stephanie Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 8 Mar 1996 08:53:34 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0172  Re: Funeral Elegy


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 07 Mar 1996 21:10:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 7.0172  Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0172  Re: Funeral Elegy

Today while I was looking for something in the STC microfilms, I found another
candidate (I think) for W.S.. In Charles Butler's *The Feminine Monarchie*
(London: Printed by Iohn Haviland, 1623), STC 4193, there is dedicatory poem
"Ad Carolum Butler" in Latin signed Warnervs Sovth.  This is the only edition
of this work that I have had a chance to examine so far.

There is a period after "Sovth." so the name may be an abbreviation.  The
subtitle of Butler's work is *The Historie of Bees,* and Edmund Southerne wrote
a treatise on bees in 1593 (STC 22942).  Is it possible that the name of the
poet is Warner Southerne?

I've looked in Don Foster's index and find no reference to Warnervs Sovth or to
Charles Butler.  So, Don has either rejected Warnervs Sovth as a possible W.S.,
or he has not considered Sovth's -- admittedly -- minor claim.

Warnervs Sovth was probably an Oxford man (Charles Butler was) -- and thus may
have met William Peter at Oxford.

Of course, his dedicatory poem comes eleven years after the *Funeral Elegy,*
and further investigation may prove that Warnervs Sovth was only ten years old
in 1612!  Or, that his name was Southwell Warner!

But I throw this W.S. into the ring -- cum grano salis.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephanie Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 8 Mar 1996 08:53:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 7.0172  Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0172  Re: Funeral Elegy

In response to Don Foster's recent post on the Funeral Elegy:

The main arguments against this poem have probably all been presented, so there
seems little point in repeating them. As for some political reason for the
anti-Stratfordians to denigrate the poem, the opposite could also be said, that
the Stratfordians have the exact same reason for promoting the poem, i.e., that
its acceptance (including the authorship, reason for writing, and date of
composition) as Shakespeare's will silence those who would like to see this
kind of scholarly diligence directed toward the much more interesting question
of who really wrote the works of Shakespeare. Since Shakespeare professionals
have been accepting far greater anomalies for some four hundred years, their
acceptance of this poem will make no difference to those who cannot marry the
biography of Shakespeare of Stratford with the reality of the works. The
weakness of the poem, the uncertainty of its authorship, time of writing, and
reason for writing, can only raise again the question, why is there no
biography for Shakespeare when a writer like Ben Jonson is fully documented?

I will say no more on this subject since we have agreed to stay away from the
authorship issue on this list, but since Don Foster was allowed to have his say
regarding the anti-Stratfordians reasons for disliking the poem, I should have
the right to respond. Those who wish to take the matter further are welcome to
post to me directly.

Stephanie Hughes

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.