1996

THE MILTON TRANSCRIPTION PROJECT (MTP)

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0384.  Friday, 17 May 1996.

From:           A. E. B. Coldiron <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 15 May 1996 14:56:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Milton Transcription Project

Dear SHAKSPER Readers,

As John Milton wrote in _Areopagitica_, "a good Booke is the pretious
life-blood of a master spirit, imbalm'd and treasur'd up on purpose to a life
beyond life."

THE MILTON TRANSCRIPTION PROJECT is dedicated to assuring that all of Milton's
poetry and prose will be available for public access on the Internet.  Although
most of Milton's poetry will soon become available at the Oxford Text Archive
and at the University of Richmond server, most of the English and Latin
prose--along with a great deal of fascinating Miltoniana-- remains to be
transcribed.  We invite you to join us in providing accurate scholarly
transcriptions of these texts.

THE MILTON TRANSCRIPTION PROJECT (MTP), currently supported by Milton-L,
_Milton Quarterly_, the Computer Writing and Research Laboratory at the
University of Texas at Austin, _EMLS_, and the University of Richmond's
web-server, is the joint creation of volunteers from 24 colleges and
universities in three countries.

Volunteers may transcribe as much or as little as they wish; each transcription
will be proofread, formatted, checked, and refereed.  We shall acknowledge any
significant contribution, and all accepted transcriptions will be credited by
name.

In order to volunteer, to view test sites, or to receive other information,
please contact either Professor Hugh Wilson (MTP, Editor; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)
or Professor A.E.B. Coldiron, (MTP, Internet Liaison; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.).

The only requirements are diligence, concern for accuracy, and the ability to
type with one or more fingers.  Volunteer: earn the intangible reward of "those
whose publisht labours advance the good of mankind" (_Areopagitica_, 1644).

Re: Teaching; Texts; Funeral Elegy

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0383.  Friday, 17 May 1996.

(1)     From:   David Skeele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 15 May 96 11:13:45 EDT
        Subj:   SHK 7.0364  TEACHING SHAKESPEARE THROUGH PERFORMANCE

(2)     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 15 May 1996 23:37:00 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0371 Re: Texts

(3)     From:   Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 15 May 1996 18:07:10 -0700
        Subj:   Funeral Elegy


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Skeele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 15 May 96 11:13:45 EDT
Subject: TEACHING SHAKESPEARE THROUGH PERFORMANCE
Comment:        SHK 7.0364  TEACHING SHAKESPEARE THROUGH PERFORMANCE

In response to Milla Riggio's query about useful text for the teaching of
Acting Shakespeare, I have had good luck with Robert Cohen's book (I believe
called "Acting Shakespeare" or "Acting in Shakespeare").  It is marred by a
dreadful middle section called "a gallery of Shakespearean characters," which
features photos of a couple of actors mugging their way through conceptions of
a number of characters, but aside from this unfortunate chapter, I have found
it to  be clear, engagingly written and full of really helpful exercises.  I
usually combine it with Kristen Linklater's "Freeing Shakespeare's Voice" and
Cicely Berry's "Voice and the Actor."  Hope this helps.

                                               David Skeele
                                               Slippery Rock University

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 15 May 1996 23:37:00 +0100
Subject: 7.0371 Re: Texts
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0371 Re: Texts

John Drakakis wrote

>On the question of the definition of terms, Egan seems to thing that meaning is
>what he thinks it is.  He wants to be "historical" when it suits his argument
>and utterly unbound by any historical context when it doesn't.

I don't at all reject the validity of Marxist and Freudian notions of "fetish",
and agree that somebody might think I was invoking them. But I wasn't, and made
that clear upon request. As you have shown, Marx uses the word in a different
way to Freud. Or, presumably they both use some non-English word or words that
have been translated as "fetish". To claim, as I do, to have been using
"fetish" in a non-specialist sense (which I defined at your request) is not to
claim that meaning isn't social and contested.But if you don't accept that
"fetishize" can have the non-specialist meaning too then you cut yourself off
from the majority of speakers of the language.

You might as well say that I can't speak of "surplus" energy without invoking
the Marxist sense of the word.

Concerning the Shakespearean Originals series...

> And in any case when we get to an "original" text do we not then encounter
> the discursive fields within which it is historically situated?...One could
> argue that "Beginings" might have been a better term.

I'd quibble on that one too. The early printed texts of Shakespeare are
variously mediated forms that cannot easily be put under one category. Is a
printed text based on an authorial draft the same kind of "beginning" as a one
based on post-performance text? What if the post-performance text became a book
because the play was no longer in the repertory of the company. Isn't this the
"ending" rather than the beginning? Especially in the case of Shakespeare who
appears to have had no interest in the plays being printed.

I'd be happy with "Shakespearean Early Printed Texts" as the title of the
series!

> A cursory sideways glance at the political version of Deconstruction
> will, I am sure, reveal the provisional finitude of the epithet "original".

I genuinely don't understand you here, sorry.

Gabriel Egan

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 15 May 1996 18:07:10 -0700
Subject:        Funeral Elegy

Here are some curious lines out of the Funeral Elegy:

"And here to thy memorable worth,
In this last act of friendship, sacrifice
My love to thee, which I could not set forth
In any other habit of disguise."

The writer seems to say that he is writing the Elegy as a "last act of
friendship", that seems clear.  And then that odd phrase "sacrifice my love".
What does that mean? How do you sacrifice your love directed towards another?
Or is that what he means?  But the most puzzling is the last part: "I could not
set forth in any other habit of disguise". A disguise to what, the Elegy, his
friendship, his sacrifice, himself?

Well, it isn't clear.  But you've got to consider this "disguise" word.  My
theory, anyway, is that "W.S." was not Shakespeare, but John Ford in disguise.
The trouble with the writer of the Elegy was of the same trouble Ford had with
rambling syntax. They seem to offer some information, but not at all, the
writer being undone by trick language.  There's much of this in the Elegy.  You
might argue, for example, that Shakespeare was young when he wrote it, or was
only in a poetical muse for a time, thinking he was young.  But John Ford _was_
young, and known to be an elegist.

 But besides all, I hope you'll only have to read a few lines of the Funeral
Elegy to see that "W.S." was much ado of piety, and much a loss for poetry, nor
was the writer our man, our darling of language, our great unknown, our "Sweet
Willie".

Re: Hebrew

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0381.  Friday, 17 May 1996.

(1)     From:   Thomas Ruddick <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 14 May 96 21:26:18 EST
        Subj:   re: Hebrew (query)

(2)     From:   Jeff Myers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 15 May 1996 08:54:50 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: criminal revolutionary academic riffraff


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Ruddick <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 14 May 96 21:26:18 EST
Subject:        re: Hebrew (query)

Florence Amit: my knowledge of Shakespeare's familiarity with languages other
than English is limited to Jonson's grudging Folio compliment that Shakespeare
was great even though he knew "little Latin and less Greek". So that I can
mentally index your comments properly, can you please share any historical
evidence you may have that Shakespeare actually knew Hebrew?

Thanks
Thomas E. "TR" Ruddick
Edison Community College

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jeff Myers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 15 May 1996 08:54:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Re: criminal revolutionary academic riffraff

>To Jeff Meyers:
>
>I did not find Mr. Groves comment amusing nor do I think he intended to discuss
>the matter humorously; but rather to make sure that discussion was curtailed by
>guillotining me. Had my larger essay appeared before, perhaps he would have
>abstained, considering that my neck was thicker than anticipated .  Alas there
>are some among you who appear  more clever than brave. But so it is that
>although I agree that I am not the person to do a serious work of Hebrew
>scholarship, the Hebrew never-the less is there, in Shakespeare and that is
>really my message to you. No joker will remove it. Hopefully someone, better
>equipped than I, will make a systematic and comprehensive survey. I thank Keith
>Richard for his noble defense of me. I am not a professor but an artist. Is
>that not good enough to open new aspects of consideration?
>
>Florence Amit

Now, I see that the unfortunately misguided Mr. Groves' crime was much worse
than the assault with which he was originally charged, with the implication of
a brutal physical attack on a defenseless victim.  Now, I see that Mr. Owens
displayed a contempt for the ordinary decencies of academic life that reminds
one of the worst excesses of the French Revolution.  Now, I see the context in
which Mr. Richard's defense was, indeed, "noble."  I shudder at the thought of
the next crime of which this criminal academic revolutionary will be found
guilty.

Mr. Groves, I'm afraid I will have to dissociate myself from your highly
questionable activities.  I must have lost my head when I first leaped to your
defense.

Suitably, I hope, chastened, Jeff Myers

p.s.--Perhaps I should take offense at the misspelling of my name, but I'll
consider the error unintentional, this time, and try to carry on despite the
pain.

Re: Thasos/Tarsus; ADO Illustrations; Bandwidth

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0382.  Friday, 17 May 1996.

(1)     From:   Steve Sohmer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 14 May 1996 18:12:36 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0374 Thasos/Tarsus

(2)     From:   Chris Stroffolino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 14 May 1996 14:47:20 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0372  Re: *Much Ado* Illustrations

(3)     From:   Thomas Ruddick <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 14 May 96 15:01:47 EST
        Subj:   RE: SHK 7.0371  Re: Texts


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Steve Sohmer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 14 May 1996 18:12:36 -0400
Subject: 7.0374 Thasos/Tarsus
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0374 Thasos/Tarsus

Nitpick. Tunis Romein's quote of Cassius is not quite correct.

Come therefore, and to Tharsus send his body,

The emendation to "Thassos," introduced by L.Theobald, though popular, is
spurious. It's risky to read Julius Caesar in any text other than the Folio.

All the best,
Steve Sohmer

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris Stroffolino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 14 May 1996 14:47:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 7.0372  Re: *Much Ado* Illustrations
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0372  Re: *Much Ado* Illustrations

There's an interesting picture of Dogberry's "interrogation" of Conrade and
Borachio reprinted in the CHARLES BOYCE Shakespeare A to Z...

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Ruddick <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 14 May 96 15:01:47 EST
Subject: 7.0371  Re: Texts
Comment:        RE: SHK 7.0371  Re: Texts

In the interests of those who pay for internet messages by the bit--it is
pointless to repost in order to correct minor grammatical slippages.  Whether
he uses the proper "I" or the common "me" we still know him to be W. Godshalk
of biblioholic fame--the meaning, unobscure, emerges despite grammar. Therefore
save the bandwidth--

Thomas E. "TR" Ruddick

Re: Shylock's Property

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0380.  Thursday, 16 May 1996.

(1)     From:   Harvey Wheeler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 14 May 96 21:44:19 UT
        Subj:   RE: SHK 7.0375  Q: Shylock's Property

(2)     From:   Jesus Cora <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 15 May 1996 13:19:08 UTC+0
        Subj:   SHK 7.0375  Q: Shylock's Property

(3)     From:   Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 16 May 1996 09:56:55 +0300
        Subj:   Reply: Shylock's Property


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Harvey Wheeler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 14 May 96 21:44:19 UT
Subject: 7.0375  Q: Shylock's Property
Comment:        RE: SHK 7.0375  Q: Shylock's Property

Daniel;

I'm sure from what you say that you know Coke (Penny Cyclopaedia) and Bacon
(three articles: Chudliegh's Case (vol 14, p. 155); Reading on the Statute of
Uses (vol 14, p.277) and Case of Revocation of Uses (vol 15, p. 78) - Spedding
et al._Works_.

Quote from the first paragraph of "Reading..."  (delivered at Grays Inn, Lent,
1600)

"...a law whereupon the inheritances of this realm are tossed at this day, as
upon a sea, in such sort that it is hard to say which bark will sink, and which
will get to the haven: that is to say, what assurances will stand good, and
what will not."

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jesus Cora <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 15 May 1996 13:19:08 UTC+0100
Subject: Q: Shylock's Property
Comment:        SHK 7.0375  Q: Shylock's Property

To me Antonio forfeits Shylock's penalty so that he is not destitute. Now, it
occurs to me that the revelation that his ships are safe and sound could be
interpreted as a sort of "providential reward" for his generosity and his
mercy, a proof, then, that Shakespeare shared this tennet of Christianity?

Yours,
J. Cora
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 16 May 1996 09:56:55 +0300
Subject:        Reply: Shylock's Property

To Daniel Lowenstein ,

Do you wish your question to be answered exactly as you termed it and with your
own sources or can it be answered by  what I believe are Shakespeare's terms
and their implications as I have characterized them in my listserv essay
"Shakespeare's Hebrew"? If the latter than accept that Portia's name stem in
Hebrew implies that she must elucidate, 'feret', (P and F are the same Hebrew
letter, peh) in the way of the Talmud. Shylock's condition is dealt with in
Hebrew law under the heading of 'Bailment'.  (Notice that the name sounds
almost the same as Belmont, where Portia dwells.) Of  three general categories,
that which suits Shylock's final condition is the 'sho'el' , borrower "and on
him is imposed the highest duty of care toward the owner of the article , since
the bailee (Shalish) has borrowed it for his own benefit. He is therefore
liable to make restitution in all cases of damage or death" (Menachem Elon,
"The Principles of Jewish Law", Encyclopedia Judaica, Jerusalem, pp. 256-262)
Since the dispensations of the sho'el does not apply to immovable chattels
Shylock must "record a gift / Here in the court, of all he dies possessed "
which is as Portia calls it "a deed of gift" and Shylock agrees "Send the deed
after me/ and I will sign it." As you say, the questions of  whose and which
duties and limitations apply to each of the three involved  has not always been
clear during the course of the play, so that there is truly a need of an
elucidator.

Concerning Antonio's destitution:  1. His "argosies" did not all sink, they are
simply late returning and indeed three of them "richly" come to port by the end
of the play. Before that he is hardly more at pecuniary risk than is his usual
condition. 2. His investment in Bassanio's future has also paid off. And those
debts can now be recalled not to mention the desire of Bassanio and Portia to
give him hospitality. 3. He does take money from Shylock. "To quit the fine for
one half of his goods,/ I am content. (IV, I, 376-381)  Were he too grasping
one would have to question his dislike of usury.

                          Florence Amit

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.