1996

Re: MND (Chastity); Texts; Visual Interpretation

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0304.  Saturday, 21 April 1996.

(1)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 19 Apr 1996 20:11:56 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0294  Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity)

(2)     From:   William Proctor Williams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 20 Apr 96 12:30 CDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0293  Re: Texts

(3)     From:   Christine Jacobson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 20 Apr 1996 17:11:38 -0700 (MST)
        Subj:   Visually Interpretive Skill vs. Textual Analysis Skills


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 19 Apr 1996 20:11:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 7.0294  Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity)
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0294  Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity)

Regarding "enforced chastity,"  David Bevington in his edition comments:
"forced, violated; or. possibly, constrained (since Titania at this moment in
hardly concerned about chastity)."  Accept for the qualification "possibly,"
Bevington's gloss seems right on target to me. But, then, I think Don Hedrick's
interpretation is right on target too.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Proctor Williams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 20 Apr 96 12:30 CDT
Subject: 7.0293  Re: Texts
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0293  Re: Texts

In response to Milla's postings about texts, and I hate to suggest that John
Andrews', or any one's should be put out of the loop, there is the choice of
going to the STC microfilm, or to the various facsimilies, and generating a
text by photocopy which is the "original."  I think anyone who can act
Shakespeare could be quickly taught the long s i-j u-v w conventions.  Then
they go from there.  What they find defective in the text may be of real
interest to scholars.

I have been troubled for years with acting companies using the "filter" of
Arden, Bevington, Evans, etc. as a way to get at the text on stage.  I think
Alan Dessen would agree with this proposal.

This may, initially, be a bit more clumsy than using a "prepared" text, but I
think it will, could, work.  What do you on the list, who work with the stage
regularly, think?

William Proctor Williams
Department of English
Northern Illinois University

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Christine Jacobson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 20 Apr 1996 17:11:38 -0700 (MST)
Subject:        Visually Interpretive Skill vs. Textual Analysis Skills

This message is in response to Jamison Porter's posting of April 3/96 in which
he decries the difficulty in presenting Shakespearean texts for interpretation
to a class of today's more visually literate student bodies. I recently
attempted to produce a term paper for my course 312b Shakespeare first, reading
four Shakespeare plays and then attempting to judge their translations into
film.  In so doing, I realized that there are a couple of difficulties, one, in
particular, of analysising verbal images, symbol in spite of copius quantities
of various visual stimulations and distractions. If nothing else, it made me
realize the importance of film analysis, period, into verbal written
expression, especially in light of today's prevelant visual productions - T.V.,
movie industry, music videos, etc.  One step towards taming this sensual influx
and retaining verbal and analytical skills would be to provide Film
journalistic format courses on works of such bards as Shakespeare.  I guess
you'd have to begin in high school.

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

Shakespeare on the web

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0303.  Saturday, 21 April 1996.

From:           Patricia Cooke <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 20 Apr 1996 10:31:17 +1200
Subject:        Shakespeare on the web

Shakespeareans in other places -

We have just opened a website for the Shakespeare Globe Centre New Zealand at

http://www.vuw.ac.nz/Drama/SGCNZ.html

which tells about our involvement with the Globe and what we do here in New
Zealand, especially for schools.

I look forward to exploring the new site.

Patricia Cooke
Secretary/Editor, SGCNZ
Shakespeare Globe Centre New Zealand Inc
97 Elizabeth Street Wellington 6001 New Zealand PH/FAX 64 4 3856743

Re: Funeral Elegy

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0301.  Saturday, 21 April 1996.

(1)     From:   Chris J. Fassler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 19 Apr 1996 11:16:14 -0400
        Subj:   Re:  Funeral Elegy

(2)     From:   Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 19 Apr 1996 10:53:21 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0297  Re: Funeral Elegy

(3)     From:   Daniel M Larner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 19 Apr 1996 14:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0297 Re: Funeral Elegy

(4)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 19 Apr 1996 21:33:12 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: Funeral Elegy

(5)     From:   Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 20 Apr 1996 16:59:38 -0700
        Subj:   Re: Funeral Elegy


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris J. Fassler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 19 Apr 1996 11:16:14 -0400
Subject:        Re:  Funeral Elegy

Perhaps, as a public service--akin to the warnings broadcast immediately before
TV shows with violent and/or sexual content--a warning statement of some kind
ought to be prefixed to Joseph Green's posts.  I'm thankful, for the sake of
the list and for its editor, that the Exxon bill is currently in abeyance, and
yet I also hope that no minors have been exposed to the Funeral Elegy track.

Feeling violated,
--Chris Fassler

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 19 Apr 1996 10:53:21 -0700
Subject: 7.0297  Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0297  Re: Funeral Elegy

Don Foster is mistaken: Ward Elliott's McKenna Claremont program is a much
better test for authorship than Shaxicon, brilliant in comparison with
Shaxicon, treating of dramatic verse and poetry with a delicacy and balance of
judgment that makes Shaxicon look like a middle-school exercise to test and
sort verbs apart from nouns.

Don Foster, of course, is a beginner in the field and, it would seem, ignorant
of the more advanced literature on the subject of stylometrics.  May I advise
him to read Jim Helfers excellent post of March 25th that he may study the work
of Elliott and his colleague Robert Valenza, who have "pioneered" some
stratistical refinements that a novice -- I mean Foster -- would do well to
understand before he tries to march Shaxicon any farther, for he does but
trample where a discreet and sure-footed step is needed.

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Daniel M Larner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 19 Apr 1996 14:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 7.0297 Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0297 Re: Funeral Elegy

SHAKSPERians--

With regard to Joseph Green's "revisionary praxis" of a "possible non-
intersection of textual surfaces,"--this "creme brulee," as he puts it, with
scarcely disguised wit, is not, as he alleges, a "denial of politics" at all.
It is, on the contrary--simply wonderful!  Thanks.

Dan Larner

(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 19 Apr 1996 21:33:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Re: Funeral Elegy

Don Foster writes:

"FE, written in continuous verse without any stanzaic breaks, has a GL of 22.
The only other text tested by Elliott with a GL higher than 19 is Heywood's
*Troia Britannica*, also in continuous verse without stanzaic breaks; while
other non-Shakespearean textsin continuous verse tend to hover around 16-18.
When adjusted for stanzaic form, FE should register a GL between 19 and 24 if
written by Shakespeare.  At GL 22, it's right on the money."

I think I understand most of this, but the phrase "When adjusted for stanzaic
form" puzzles me.  Obviously FE is not in stanzaic form, and so the phrase must
be a negative: when adjusted for not being in stanzaic form.

But how is such an adjustment made?  I think a crucial calculation or series of
caluclations has been dropped out of the explanation.

Earlier  Don tells us: "The poems have a higher GL because they are written in
stanzaic form without the frequent breaks of dramatic dialogue: they vary thus
from GL 10 to GL 22.  PhT, having a four-line stanza, has a GL of 8. "

I don't understand this comment.  (I assume that "The poems" means
"Shakespeare's poems."  Am I correct?)  Given that PhT has a GL of 8, shouldn't
the poems vary from GL 8 to the top number?  And where does GL 22 come from?
Only in FE does the GL rise to 22 -- in the samples given in the posting at any
rate,  where the Sonnets are highest with a median of GL 13. Shouldn't
Shakespeare's known GL in non-dramatic verse range from 8 to 13?

Am I missing something here?

Yours, Bill Godshalk

(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 20 Apr 1996 16:59:38 -0700
Subject:        Re: Funeral Elegy

Shaxicon has compared John Ford's early verse with that of W.S., unknown writer
of the Funeral Elegy.  It can find no similarity between the two poets.  Here
is the beginning line of John Ford's major elegy and the beginning line of the
Funeral Elegy:

Ford:  "Swift Time, the speedy pursuivant of heaven...."
W.S.:  "Since Time, and his predestined end...."

Shaxicon doesn't see the likeness.  And then here are the concluding lines of
another John Ford elegy and the Funeral Elegy:

Ford:  "Sleep in peace: thus happy hast thou prov'd
          Thou mightst have died more known, not more belov'd."
W.S.:   "Who herein hast forever happy prov'd:
           In life thou livdst, in death thou died belov'd."

Shaxicon doesn't see the likeness, and cannot really be blamed for that.  All
Shaxicon can really do is count things; it has no notion of meaning.  Well,
then, here is a count of 4-syllable words in 578 lines, John Ford's major poem,
the Funeral Elegy, and the Sonnets.

Ford:           69
W.S.:           62
Sonnets:        15.

Now this is something that Shaxicon can understand, but it takes no notice of
this 300% difference between the Sonnets and the Funeral Elegy.. It was not
programmed to notice long words, evidently.  However, that's an important
stylistic disparity, a significant mismatch between Shakespeare's non- dramatic
poetry and the Funeral Elegy.

Then there is the quality of the poetry itself.  Shaxicon cannot answer for
that, not knowing poetry from shinola, something which Don Foster admits, and
he should know.because he created Shaxicon. Those who believe the Funeral Elegy
to be written by Shakespeare must answer for themselves how Shakespeare could
have written that miserable poem (Foster admits it) in the same year he wrote
the Tempest.  It's an outstanding descent, a monumental failure, such a fall
from grace not recorded of any poet in all the world since the beginning of
time.  Shaxicon doesn't know a thing about that, and Don Foster tells us that
it's a mere detail.

On the other hand, John Ford could write such a piece of bootpolish as the
Funeral Elegy with his eyes closed, or filled with tears in reverence and
inward weeping for the mismanagement of Fate, all the world treating the
subject of the memorial (and himself) with such malice as one would not expect
to be attached to such saints.  One of Ford's editors describes his early verse
as so much "whining", and that matches well with the  Funeral Elegy.

Does Don Foster, et al, really think that the Funeral Elegy has not been seen
before?  Do they think that Chambers didn't read it, or Schoenbaum, or
Halliwell-Phillips, Rouse, Spurgeon, Hotson, Langbaine, Malone, Chalmers,
Steevens, Dowden, Harrison, Lee.....?  The list of exhalted Shakespearean
scholars who must have read and put aside the Funeral Elegy would fill pages.
Can we believe they actually overlooked a poem by "W.S.". leaving Shaxicon to
make the discovery that the Funeral Elegy was written by Shakespeare?  Not
bloody likely.

I understand that the poem is going to be read by "four voices" soon in Maine.
It might be a good show.  A weeping violin would fit in nicely, and certainly
Shaxicon will be trotted out, perhaps in a cage, a "beast that wants discourse
of reason".  I can't make it.  If there might be jugglers and acrobats I would
reconsider. But, no.  The bathos of the thing can't be endured.

Re: Theory and Branagh

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0302.  Saturday, 21 April 1996.

(1)     From:   Peter Herman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 19 Apr 1996 09:00:33 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons

(2)     From:   Eileen Flanagan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 19 Apr 1996 11:23:00 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and

(3)     From:   Chris Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 20 Apr 96 13:58:57 -0500
        Subj:   Branagh's productions


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Herman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 19 Apr 1996 09:00:33 -0400
Subject: 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons

In response to David Shalkwyk's query, I have two responses. First, I cavil
with the term, "the advent of theory," which assumes a period that is *without*
theory. That, of course, is nonsense, and as Gerald Graff's marvelous book,
_Professing Literature_, shows in copious detail, the arguments surrounding
"theory" today have been a part of this profession since it's inception
sometime in the mid-nineteenth century. Second, my impression is that
Shakespeare criticism has suffered no diminution because of the introduction of
canon criticism, deconstruction, and the like. In fact, it seems to have only
increased production as new areas opened up (e.g., working on the ideology of
post-Renaissance constructions of Shakespeare, editing practices, manuscript
culture, and the like). To prove the point, one could look at the MLA
Bibliography every year to see how many items there are on Shakespeare, or--
and this might be a better option-- the annual bibliography in _Shakespeare
Quarterly_.  Along these lines, one of the criticisms of the New Historicism is
that despite its professed attention to marginalized voices, it has in effect
reproduced the canon rather than opening it up.

Peter C. Herman
Dept. of English
GSU

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Eileen Flanagan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 19 Apr 1996 11:23:00 -0500
Subject: 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and

I believe Mr. Branagh wrote quite a bit about HENRY V in his autobiography
BEGINNING.  It's toward the end of the book.  He also writes of his initial
experience with HENRY V at the RSC at little earlier in the book.  In fact the
book ends with the wrap of the HENRY V film.  The book should be available in
libraries and bookstores.

VTY, Eileen Flanagan

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 20 Apr 96 13:58:57 -0500
Subject:        Branagh's productions

Dear David Schalkwyk:

I have copies of Branagh's screenplays for both *Henry V* and *Much Ado*: he
has essays about the productions in each of them. He also wrote about the film
version of *Henry V* in his book *Beginning,* which I also have. I would be
happy to copy and send you this material if you're interested.

Chris Gordon

Re: Branagh and Cartoons

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0300.  Friday, 19 April 1996.

(1)     From:   John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 19 Apr 1996 01:39:23 -0400 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons

(2)     From:   Milla Riggio <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 19 Apr 1996 03:21:24 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0295  Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons

(3)     From:   Nora Kreimer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 20:28:00 ARG
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0295  Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 19 Apr 1996 01:39:23 -0400 (PDT)
Subject: 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0295 Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons

Re : Kenneth Branagh's pronouncements

Branagh said on one of the late night talk shows a couple of years ago that he
had terribly boring teachers for Shakespeare in high school and became
determined to make Shakespeare interesting.

I tell my classes he was lucky he didn't have a teacher like me. Shakespeare
would have been so interesting Branagh would have ended up as a junior bank
teller.

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

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Milla Riggio <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 19 Apr 1996 03:21:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 7.0295  Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0295  Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons

To:  David Schalkwyk -

There is, or was, one of those glitzy but fairly inexpensive MUCH ADO ABOUT
NOTHING filmbooks, in which Branagh talks about his choices in that film.

Anything comparable on Henry V is probably out of print.  So go for the newer
play.

Best,
Milla Riggio

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Nora Kreimer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Apr 1996 20:28:00 ARG
Subject: 7.0295  Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0295  Qs: Theory, Branagh, and Cartoons

> I was wondering if anyone had seen and/or taped the new series of HBO
> Shakespeare cartoons (AYLI, RIII, Othello, etc.). They were on in January and
> February, and I am trying to get a look at them. I want to continue some work
> that I did on the earlier series. If someone is willing to send me their tape,
> I faithfully promise to return it ASAP. You can reply off the list, if you
> like.

They are Random House productions. I have the HAMLET 30' version and it's
wonderful!

Nora Kreimer
Buenos Aires
Argentina

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.