1996

Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0507.  Monday, 8 July 1996.

(1)     From:   Douglas S. Bruster <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 6 Jul 1996 10:58:38 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0505 Re: Shakespeare/Marlowe/Bloom

(2)     From:   Charles Ross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 8 Jul 1996 09:55:58 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0505 Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe

(3)     From:   Ed Bonahue <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 8 Jul 1996 12:54:47 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe

(4)     From:   Vincent J Mooney Jr. <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 06 Jul 1996 21:41:19 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0505  Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe w/ Editor's Note

(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Douglas S. Bruster <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 6 Jul 1996 10:58:38 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: 7.0505 Re: Shakespeare/Marlowe/Bloom
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0505 Re: Shakespeare/Marlowe/Bloom

I want to pick up on Tom Bishop's recent posting regarding questions of
influence, intertextuality, and textual dialogue among Shakespeare and other
writers and texts. Bishop points out that Harold Bloom has himself had a large
influence on the way we understand these issues, and he's surely right to hint
that sometimes that influence has been less than helpful.  My major differences
with Bloom are over the (for lack of a better term) "aristocratic" nature of
his understanding of influence: to put it more briefly than it deserves, Great
Poets read and respond to (devour, etc.) other Great Poets.  While it would be
foolish to say that a writer like Marlowe wasn't an informing presence to the
works of many of his contemporaries--Shakespeare and Jonson included--a
canonical approach to literary composition tends to erase the importance of
writers who have not made it into the _Norton Anthology_, or modern reading
lists.  And in erasing that importance an exclusionary approach falsifies our
understanding of these plays.  We get, in such arguments, a literary House of
Lords, but no Commons.

The tendency I am describing here isn't confined to Bloom, of course: our
profession rewards scholars who write on "important" authors.  Not
surprisingly, then, do many celebrated critical works construct narratives of
influence that all but exclude non-canonical authors, regardless of the actual
communities of influence and exchange that may have obtained historically.
Along these lines, I would point to a relevant observation in Mary Thomas
Crane's _Framing Authority_, which argues that the commonplace book-method of
composition led early modern writers to see their engagement with "literature
as the collection and redeployment of . . . fragments and not, in many cases,
as the assimilation and imitation of whole works." It is part of Crane's
argument that the account of imitation offered in _The Light in Troy_, for
instance, doesn't adequately explain the real practices of reading and
composition in early modern England.

Those interested (as I was) in Bishop's remarks about intertextuality as
dialogue might want to consult, for the term "textual dialogue," R.D. Bedford's
_ Dialogues with Convention: Readings in Renaissance Poetry_; and, in addition
to James Shapiro's _Rival Playwrights_, which I mentioned in an earlier post,
two other books which have similar interests: Richard S. Ide's _Possessed with
Greatness: The Heroic Tragedies of Chapman and Shakespeare_; and Robert N.
Watson, _Ben Jonson's Parodic Strategy: Literary Imperialism in the Comedies_.
Ide, I should point out, draws on a relevant statement by Anne Barton: "in the
small, closely connected world of the Elizabethan and Jacobean playwrights, the
evolution of dramatic form took the shape of a dialogue among plays.  Writers
reacted intensely to one another's work, and in a variety of ways." Finally, a
very rich essay on source study generally--and new paradigms for the study of
intertextuality--is Robert S. Miola, "Othello Furens," _Shakespeare Quarterly_
41 (1990), pp. 49-69.

Douglas Bruster

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Charles Ross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 8 Jul 1996 09:55:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 7.0505 Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0505 Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe

Thomas Bishop asks if Ariel's "yellow sands" are a "late and pacific echo of
Marlowe's "Hero and Leander." Perhaps, but both Shakespeare and M. would have
had in mind Aeneas's first sight of the Tiber River pouring into the sea
"flavus multa arena": yellow with much sand, a stunning Virgilian image from
book 7 that both authors would have worked on in their young school days.

On the larger issue of imitation: isn't it a little parochial to get worked up
about Shakespeare and Marlowe? Or did Shakespeare regard Marlowe as the English
representative of all the classical and Renaissance poetry out there in
languages other than English?

Charles Ross
Purdue Univ.

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Bonahue <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 8 Jul 1996 12:54:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe

A few rejoinders to the conversation on Shakespeare and Marlowe.  Most
importantly, however, is the question of what we mean by "Marlowe."  How
comfortable are we, for example, with identifying a single Marlovian style?
Obviously "Hero and Leander," TAMBURLAINE, and DR FAUSTUS demonstrate a certain
range of style.

Next, Tom Bishop's assertaion that Shakespeare's relation to Marlowe is "the
only really important question of influence" simplifies, to me, the whole
question of influence--what it is, how it works.  For example, does it matter
whether Shakespeare sat over a Marlowe play, worked through it, and sought to
come to terms with it?  Or can't influence also be more subtle, even
unconscious--the product of barely remembered ideas and language?  Certainly if
the various avenues of cultural studies have taught us anything, they have
taught us that "influence" is often an extremely subtle process.

And finally, I think once the issue of what constitutes an instance of
influence and what does not and what is somewhere in between is brought into
play, then the generalizations of critics like Bloom, Garber, etc., while
useful as generalizations, become cumbersome when we begin to discuss specific
cases.  Most of us are probably a lot more comfortable discussing, say,
Pistol's cant as a humorous rehashing of Tamburlaine, or any number of heroic
speeches as imitative of Marlowe's poetic style, than we are discussing
Shakespeare and Marlowe in such broad terms.  Right, well, I am:)

Ed Bonahue
University of Florida

(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Vincent J Mooney Jr. <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 06 Jul 1996 21:41:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 7.0505  Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe [w/ Editor's Note]
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0505  Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe [w/ Editor's Note]

Tom Bishop wrote in part:

snip snip  ...   Aside from the kooks who think (along with Woody Allen) that
Shakespeare WAS Marlowe or Marlowe WAS Shakespeare, and that neither of them
was trustworthy   ... snip snip  ...  Bloom speaks repeatedly of Shakespeare's
having "swallowed" Marlowe whole, like Jonah and the Whale (except for Barabas,
whom he apparently couldnt digest).  ... snip snip  ...  In the relations
between "The Jew of Malta" and "The Merchant of Venice" can we trace a similar
process? ... end of my selective snips.

1.  The reasoning process is that Shakespeare was not the man from Stratford as
based on the plays and sonnets and poems. Many people have come to this
conclusion.

2.  Another reasoned process of many is that Shakespeare was multiple authors
as indicated by the plays and poems and sonnets and plays.

3.  People in groups one and two look for evidence beyond the was Shakespeare a
Lawyer issue and Was Shakespeare a Nobleman issue.  They try to match a writer
with the works.

4.  One match is the evidence that Marlowe influenced Shakespeare and "The Jew
of Malta" play is one such point.  Not sufficient in my view, but I can see the
reason why people elect to put this view out.

Reference to such people as kooks does not help disspell the evidence that is
offered.  At the least, Shakespeare was a collective effort; at the most he was
one man who "knew the times" (as do many playwrights today) and could pick from
the works of others freely.

I do not think that Marlowe was Shakespeare.  Or Oxford.  But I do think the
issue of who this man was (does one accept that he was the Stratford man?)
cannot be ignored.  Perhaps this thread is not the place to look it over  --
so much else worthwhile is available  --  but the topic is not going away.

               Vincent J Mooney Jr.

[Editor's Note:

I must repeat discussions of authorship are no longer permitted on SHAKSPER.
To those of us who make our livings studying and teaching these works,
authorship simply is NOT an issue.  As Russ McDonald puts it in *The Bedford
Companion to Shakespeare*, "The strongest case against Oxford or Bacon or
Marlowe or anyone, however, arises not from a barrage of negative arguments but
rather from the positive evidence placing William Shakespeare of Stratford in
London between 1592 and 1612, connecting him to the theatrical scene there
(specifically his membership in the King's Men), and identifying him with the
published texts that derived from public performances and that bear his name"
(26).

I would also like strongly to recommend again Dave Kathman's and Terry Ross's
Shakespeare Authorship Web Page: Dedicated to the Proposition that Shakespeare
Wrote Shakespeare -- http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~tross/ws/will.html Kathman and
Ross bring together an impressive array of materials organzied under the
following: Introduction, Critically Examining Oxfordian Claims, The Spelling
and Pronunciation of Shakespeare's Name, Dating *The Tempest*, Puttenham on
Oxford, Shakespeare IN FACT, Funeral Elegy, Bardlinks Elsewhere on the Web.
For anyone who may be interested I reproduce below their Introduction:

>Many books and articles have been written arguing that someone other than
>William Shakespeare, the glover's son from Stratford-upon-Avon, wrote the plays
>and poems published under his name. There exist sincere and intelligent people
>who believe there is strong evidence that Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of
>Oxford, was the author of these plays and poems. Yet professional Shakespeare
>scholars -- those whose job it is to study, write, and teach about Shakespeare
>-- are unanimous in finding Oxfordian claims to be groundless, often not even
>worth discussing.

>Why is this? Oxfordians claim that these scholars are blinded to the evidence
>by a vested self-interest in preserving the authorship of "the Stratford Man,"
>and some more extreme Oxfordians claim that there is an active conspiracy among
>orthodox scholars to suppress pro-Oxford evidence and keep it from the
>attention of the general public. The truth, however, is far more prosaic.
>Oxfordians are not taken seriously by the Shakespeare establishment because
>(with few exceptions) they do not follow basic standards of scholarship, and
>the "evidence" they present for their fantastic scenarios is either distorted,
>taken out of context, or flat-out false.

>This web site is for the intelligent nonspecialist who doesn't know what to
>make of these challenges to Shakespeare's authorship. Oxfordian books can be
>deceptively convincing to a reader who is unaware of the relevant historical
>background and unused to the rhetorical tricks used by Oxfordians. Our aim is
>to provide context where needed, expose misinformation passed off by Oxfordians
>as fact, and in general show the nonspecialist reader why professional
>Shakespeare scholars have so little regard for Oxfordian claims. We know from
>experience that we are not likely to convince any Oxfordians to change their
>views, but we hope that other readers will find something of value here. We
>will be updating and adding new material as time permits, and we welcome any
>comments or suggestions.

>Dave Kathman
>Terry Ross]

Re: Acting Shakespeare

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0506.  Saturday, 6 July 1996.

From:           Rick Jones <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 6 Jul 1996 00:56:21 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: 7.0498 Re: Acting Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0498 Re: Acting Shakespeare

Thanks to Milla Riggio for posting what Michael Kahn "really said."  In looking
back at the post that touched off this particular furor, I find that her precis
of his statement was indeed fairly accurate: of course, in the much shorter
version, a number of *potentially* volatile statements were left unexplained.
But there's really nothing there to elicit a firestorm.

Why, then, the immoderation (including my own)?  I suspect it has more to do
with tone than with content: the implication (perceived by me, whether or not
intended) that actors are, as a class, unable to see that post-Stanislavskian
techniques don't always (ever?) work terribly well on pre-modern plays.  I have
no doubt that such actors do exist, but in my own experience of acting in and
directing pre-modern plays, I have known perhaps two or three actors who might
arguably have believed that even close to (literally) 90% of the meaning of a
speech in a pre-modern play is "submerged".  The several dozen others would put
the figure at well under 50%, probably (on average) around 15%.  True, that's
not 0%, as Michael Kahn suggests, but even he can get to that figure only by a
semantic quibble. He even points out such characters as Iago and Richard III,
who tell us that they are about to engage in (what?) metatheatre (?).  Thus,
their subsequent actions are not literally SUB-textual, but they do represent a
character's saying something and (specifically, unequivocally) not meaning it.
That's what many (most?) actors would mean by the term "sub-text".  But I
really don't want to nit-pick here: or to deny Kahn a little hyperbole, if such
indeed it is.

At the risk of sounding hopelessly New Historicist here, I would suggest that
Kahn is a man of his times.  When he first started in the business, the Method
was the single dominant theory of American actor training.  That is no longer
the case, and even those courses which emphasize Stanislavskian and/or
post-Stanislavskian techniques now do so with far greater circumspection than
may have been true a generation ago.  Or at least so anecdotal evidence would
seem to suggest.  My own teaching is less based on American Method than it was
a decade ago, which in turn was less "Method" than my own training a decade
before that, which was in turn less "Method" than that of a decade earlier
still.  Many teachers, myself included, have adopted a pragmatic (I hope!)
eclecticism: the last time I taught Acting II, I used three texts: David Ball's
_Backwards and Forwards_, Cicely Berry's _The Actor and the Text_, and Uta
Hagen's _Respect for Acting_.  A little something for everyone...

Anyway, I'm STILL unclear about Milla Riggio's (dare I say it?) motivation for
posting the original Kahn paraphrase.  How does this approach (or any other,
for that matter) lead us to choose one interpretation over another in a case in
which the specifics of meaning are not predetermined by the text?  That is, no
one is suggesting (or at least I'm not) that Shylock wouldn't jump at the
chance of revenge should it present itself.  The question is the extent of that
revenge: death? public humiliation? economic ruin?  I believe there is a case
to be made for any of these options: I know which one I'd choose, but that's
another matter.  The point is that whatever choice is made will affect and be
affected by a multitude of other choices: provided these choices create a
coherent and consistent set of images/responses, I'm all for whichever choice
an individual director and actor choose.

With apologies for the intemperance of a couple posts ago... and for the length
of this one,

Rick Jones

Re: Textual Criticism

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0504.  Saturday, 6 July 1996.

(1)     From:   Nick Clary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 05 Jul 1996 10:18:31 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Textual Criticism

(2)     From:   Corrie Zoll <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 5 Jul 1996 22:17:56 -0400
        Subj:   Textual Criticism

(3)     From:   Thomas L. Berger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 6 Jul 1996 10:21
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0497  Q: Textual Criticism


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Nick Clary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 05 Jul 1996 10:18:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Textual Criticism

A few days ago I sent the response below to Tunis Romein.  This morning's
postings indicate that others may be interested in an assignment like the one
described in the original call for suggestions.

                *               *               *

Let me recommend two resource texts: *The Three-Text Hamlet* edited by Paul
Bertram and Bernice W. Kliman (AMS Press, 1991), and "Enfolded *Hamlet* edited
by Bernice W. Kliman (Hardin Aasand, Nick Clary, and Eric Rasmussen) Extra
Issue, *Shakespeare Newsletter* (Spring 1996).  In the first, you will find all
three texts in parallel columns, which will give you a field day of choices:
there are Q2-only passages and  F1-only passage, each of which have their own
correspondences with Q1 and some of which have no correspondences with Q1.  In
the second, you will be able to see where Q2 and F1 vary, according to a system
of brackets that identify not only Q2-only and F1-only passages, but also words
and phrases that differ between the two.  In the Introduction, Bernice
distinguishes the bracketing system employed in the "Enfolded" text, which
differs from a conflation, from the system of differentiation used in the
newest Folger Library paperback.  The "Enfolded *Hamlet* may be purchased for
classroom use from the *Shakespeare Newsletter* at a reasonable price (less
than the cost of the least expensive paperback). As this is a working
copy-text, your students might take special delight in participating in a "real
project."  As one of the co-editors I would welcome yours and their
observations---also your estimates of its usefulness to your teaching purposes.

If you are interested in specific recommendations, I can offer a few from some
pivotal scenes (from the play-within-the-play to Ophelia's mad scenes--the
section that I am spcifically collating. By return e-mail you can let me know
whether you want a few specific suggestions.  There are one or two recently
published books that you may wish to secure for your library, particularly if
*Hamlet* will be one of your target texts.

Good luck.  I believe this is an interesting exercise. Make sure that your
students trouble to examine some of the earliest 17th-century editions, as well
as the variorum editions (from Johnson's first "unofficial" ones in 1765 to the
first "official one," the Steevens/Johnson edition of 1773, and from the early
19th-century ones after Malone's in 1790 to the H.H. Furness New Variorum of
1877).  They will need to develop a historical perspective on the evolution of
Shakespeare's texts through its many transmutations in print.  This includes
the earliest reading and performance texts without named editors, as well as
edited texts without significant commentary (from Rowe's 1709 edition to
Theobald's published notes in 1726; from Theobald's (1733) and Capell's (1767)
voluminous editions to the array of extra-editorial publications of gathered
emendations and commentaries, which began to proliferate at the turn into the
19th century.

I am currently organizing a seminar in Variorum Editing.  Assignments like the
one you have in mind will certainly figure into the exercises that our students
will do for me.  Keep me posted on your developing plans.

Nick Clary

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Corrie Zoll <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 5 Jul 1996 22:17:56 -0400
Subject:        Textual Criticism

To Tunis Romein: Try the last scene of King Lear, in which the Quarto and Folio
versions, which vary in only a few words, have significantly different
meanings.  I would be interested in hearing discussion of this topic on the
list.  Any takers?

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas L. Berger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 6 Jul 1996 10:21:15 GMT
Subject: 7.0497  Q: Textual Criticism
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0497  Q: Textual Criticism

In reply to Tunis Romein's query about textual criticism, I would make one
remark, one suggestion.

Remark:  If you throw those students into HAMLET's vexed textual problems, you
may very well excite some, but others might drown and be put off by the whole
proposition.

Suggestion:  I've had some success with MND, 5.1 in the folio and the quarto
(1600), with Egeus replacing Philostrate in the Folio, with Lysander feeding
Theseus the descriptions of the possible merriments for the wedding feast and
letting Theseus respond.  By having Egeus simply appear in Act 5, the tone
changes.  Then too, who was Tawyer and where did he get that trumpet?

Good luck,
tom berger

Re: Shakespeare on AUDIO; Shakespeare and Marlowe

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0505.  Saturday, 6 July 1996.

(1)     From:   Mark Womack <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 5 Jul 1996 17:33:05 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0503  Q: Shakespeare on AUDIO

(2)     From:   Thomas Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 6 Jul 1996 09:47:18 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0500  Shakespeare and Marlowe


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mark Womack <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 5 Jul 1996 17:33:05 -0500
Subject: 7.0503  Q: Shakespeare on AUDIO
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0503  Q: Shakespeare on AUDIO

I have a partial answer to Ed Peschko's query about Shakespeare plays on CD.
The BBC Radio / Renaissance Theater Company have, I believe, released three
Shakespeare plays on CD: Hamlet (1992), Romeo and Juliet (1993), and King Lear
(1994).  I have only seen the Caedmon recordings on tape, not CD.

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

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 6 Jul 1996 09:47:18 +1000
Subject: 7.0500  Shakespeare and Marlowe
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0500  Shakespeare and Marlowe

OK, I'll bite, since it looks like no one else is going to, much. This topic
seems to me the only really important question of "influence" (as opposed to a
more benign notion of "source") in Shakespeare's work. There is no doubt that
Shakespeare (what are our metaphors for this?) grappled with, responded to,
worked out/over/through, etc, what Marlowe's poetry meant to him and could do
for his over many years. About ten by my count, though there are even later
echoes (are Ariel's "yellow sands" a late and pacific echo of Hero and
Leander's -- for a happier couple NOT sundered by drowning?). Several critics
of note have asked this question, with variable answers. Aside from the kooks
who think (along with Woody Allen) that Shakespeare WAS Marlowe or Marlowe WAS
Shakespeare, and that neither of them was trustworthy, I can think of: F.P.
Wilson, Muriel Bradbrook, Nicholas Brooke, Wilbur Sanders, Marge Garber, James
Shapiro, and of course the indefatigable Harold Bloom, who more or less owns
this sort of question and who, for all the flack he gets, has still one of the
most original and responsive minds (not to mention ears) in this business.

I think a lot of the stakes here lie in (or can be read in) the choice of
shaping metaphors for the relations of the writers. Bloom speaks repeatedly of
Shakespeare's having "swallowed" Marlowe whole, like Jonah and the Whale
(except for Barabas, whom he apparently couldnt digest). This is the strongest
image of the many on offer. Shapiro speaks of a process of "parody and
containment" which is milder, though the latter sometimes sounds like a pale
(or impaled) version of Bloom's more bodily engulfment. Shapiro looks for
specific echoes and evocations of Marlowe's lines, Bloom goes for wholesale
parallels of representational mode or mood. Garber's key image is of the two
playing a kind of poker, putting down plays to trump one another. The
aggressivity of this looks to me more like the relations between literary
critics than between poets, as though a poet wrote a poem -mainly- to show up
another poet (OK sometimes they do), and not from some other need that had to
"speak with" that poet in order to define its own terms more clearly. Would it
improve, or at least modulate, our way of speaking, to imagine the two
playwrights, even after Marlowe's death, engaging in a kind of "conversation"
with one another, as poets often do. "So that's how it seems to you?....But it
seems to me rather -this- way..." Bloom in particular can be very subtle about
these exchanges (he has proposed several taxonomies of ways of saying this in
poems, not reducible to mere competitive aggression) though even he is inclined
to stress the "trumping" aspects. When Shelley seriously disagrees with
Coleridge about "Nature's message", he doesnt so much "parody and contain" him,
or swallow him, or trump him, as reply to him: "Mont Blanc" for the "Hymn at
Sunrise". In the relations between "The Jew of Malta" and "The Merchant of
Venice" can we trace a similar process? "No, the world isnt like that, it's
like this: love is possible. One can find one's way out of the wilderness, even
the wilderness of monkeys." This makes Portia, and NOT Shylock, his principle
imaginative response to Barabas, and explains why he showed no interest in
"swallowing" the latter: less inability than disbelief. Marlowe might well have
laughed rather bitterly at this, if he had been alinve still, and I dont myself
think this is his most effective reply, but I think it is what he was trying to
do. I rather think of the two poets as engaged in a kind of strongly felt
debate with their plays, if you like, as their statements of "the case". This
is competitive, if you like, but in a different way, in the way religions
compete to assert their truths,  or philosophies their insights.

From this point of view, Marlowe's death becomes a kind of sublime attempt at a
final word. Except, of course, that it wasnt.

Well, let's see if that ball will roll.

   Tom Bishop

Q: Shakespeare on AUDIO

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0503.  Friday, 5 July 1996.

From:           Ed Peschko <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 Jul 1996 15:08:59 -0600 (MDT)
Subject:        Shakespeare on AUDIO

Forgive me if this is a FAQ, but here goes:

What Shakespeare plays are available on Compact Disc? I'm aware of Caedmon, and
of the Renaissance Theatre Company (Branagh et al.), but the only plays that
both companies have produced on CD are the 'favorites' -- Macbeth, King Lear,
etc.

I'm *hoping* that the BBC has bothered to put to audio the entire canon that
they did in the 1970's (love those versions, especially Twelfth Night). Ditto
for laserdisc, or NTSC videotape.

Anyways, anybody who has a clue about this, let me know.

Thanks,
Ed

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.