1996

Q: Shakespeare/Joyce Quote

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0471.  Monday, 24 June 1996.

From:           Leo Daugherty <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 23 Jun 1996 21:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:        Shakespeare/Joyce Quote Query

Dear SHAKSPEReans:

Can anybody tell me the source (in Joyce, I think) of the phrase "The sonnets
of Shakespeare are the last refuge of minds gone round the bend"? (I'm sure the
quote is nowhere near exact as I've given it, by the way.)

Many thanks in advance to anyone who can and will; I've been wondering about
this from time to time for years, but now want to put it in an article.

                                                         Leo Daugherty

Re: Parody; Names

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0470.  Monday, 24 June 1996.

(1)     From:   Jane A Thompson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 21 Jun 1996 17:21:39 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   Humouring Scholarship

(2)     From:   Peter L Groves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Jun 1996 12:55:19 GMT+1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0463  Re: Shylock


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jane A Thompson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 21 Jun 1996 17:21:39 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:        Humouring Scholarship

Shortly after posting my questions about parody and Shakespeare scholarship, I
ran across the following in an article:

        "Many cases," [Stephen Orgel] writes, "were recorded
        of women becoming men through the pressure of some
        great activity."  The endnote to this large claim refers
        not to women, but to alligators, but as the previous note
        referred the reader to Laqueur's _Representations_ article
        and to Greenblatt's "Fiction and Friction," we can be
        reasonably sure that the "many cases" in question are in
        fact the single case of Marie-Germaine, cited by both
        Pare and Montaigne. (Hutson 145)

This quote, I realize, seems even daffier out of context.  Perhaps the endnote
about alligators also made better sense in context, but I rather doubt it.  All
this seems to me exactly the kind of thing that makes a good parody hard to
find.

Source:

Hutson, Lorna.  "On not Being Deceived:  Rhetoric and the Body in
        _Twelfth Night_." _Texas Studies in Literature and Language_
        38:2.  140-147.

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter L Groves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Jun 1996 12:55:19 GMT+1000
Subject: 7.0463  Re: Shylock
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0463  Re: Shylock

Jesus Cora asks
>
> This is for Lisa Hopkins: not to mention Gloucester (Gloster), Glamis (Glams)
> and changeable Perdita (P'erdita / Perd'ita, which syllable is stressed? For
> me, as a Spaniard, Perd'ita -stress on the second syllable- makes more sense)

The evidence of the metre is mercifully unamiguous: for Shakespeare, at least,
it is invariably PERdita.  The name people come to blows over (in my
experience) is Coriolanus.

Peter Groves,
Department of English,
Monash University,

Re: Michael Kahn's Comment

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0468.  Monday, 24 June 1996.

(1)     From:   Ed Pechter <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 21 Jun 1996 12:22:41 +0000 (HELP)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0464 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment

(2)     From:   Rinda Frye <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 23 Jun 96  17:27:11 EDT
        Subj:   SHK 7.0464  Re: Michael Kahn's Comment


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Pechter <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 21 Jun 1996 12:22:41 +0000 (HELP)
Subject: 7.0464 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0464 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment

Big up to S. Urkowitz for his comment about Michael Kahn's comment.  For one
thing, as I remember, we don't have Kahn's words so much as Milla's version.
But the more important point is the one Steve makes:  theater people talk
theater-talk.  They sometimes use the same words normal people (like us) use,
"Shakespeare," "character"--but differently.  U of Iowa P just published an
essay collection called Textual & Theatrical Shakespeare:  Questions of
Evidence whose contributors talk about this matter.  There's a brilliant essay
by W. B. Worthen at the end that's dead-on relevant, called "Reading Actors
Reading."  Every one on the list should buy two copies of this book, one for
themselves, one for a friend.  I happen to know the editor of the book, he's
buying a new house and is really hard up for money.

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Rinda Frye <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 23 Jun 96  17:27:11 EDT
Subject: Re: Michael Kahn's Comment
Comment:        SHK 7.0464  Re: Michael Kahn's Comment

If I may just add to the discussion about subtext in Shakespeare, often when
acting coaches or directors caution actors against "playing subtext" in
Shakespeare, they are trying to disuade them from the habit of thinking/feeling
a line first and then speaking the lines almost as an afterthought. This is a
common habit with American actors because it often gives the appearance of a
"natural" delivery, but with Shakespeare, as I'm sure you know, such an
approach is deadly.  Usually this caution against playing subtext is not
intended to keep the actor from making interpretive choices--that would be
silly at best.

Oregon Shakespeare Festival, Ashland

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0469.  Monday, 24 June 1996.

From:           Thomas H. Blackburn)<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 21 Jun 1996 12:36:28 +0500
Subject:        Oregon Shakespeare Festival, Ashland

The 1996 Shakespeare Season at the Ashland, Oregon, Shakespeare Festival

Though I will be writing a more complete review for SHAKESPEARE IN THE
CLASSROOM (to appear in the fall), I want to encourage any of you who can
possibly get to Ashland to indulge in this season's offerings. My wife and I
saw four plays in three days without surfeit and with delight. The highlight
for me was CORIOLANUS, in a production which masked none of the play's
ambiguous attitudes towards both the plebian demands and rights and the hero's
personal courage and integrity (and Volumnia's powers). As Coriolanus, Derrick
Lee Weeden earned a standing ovation for a protrayal that managed at once to be
moving and frightening in his personal anguish and in his arrogance and
capacity for impersonal violence. The production of LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST
maintained a pace and a level of visual support for both the verbal humor and
the amorous interplay which made the play work with unexpected liveliness for a
work which often seems to readers a dated piece of extravagance. ROMEO AND
JULIET survived an overly acrobatic Romeo, partly because of Vilma Silva's
feisty Juliet, and without resorting to gimicks lent decent new life to the
play's familiar language. The one weak spot in THE WINTER'S TALE, to my taste
at least, was Perdita (probably because of a powerless rendering of the flower
speeches), the only one of the three plays to be produced indoors at the Bowman
Theatre rather than under the stars at the Elixabethan. Though each of these
plays was directed by a different person, all of them showed a willingness to
mingle stylized movements and patterns with naturalistic ones when the
stylization would help make clear and present the heart of the action. As I
discovered last year, the depth of the repertory company means that supporting
roles are almost always as well-played as the principals (one plays principal
may well be the next's spear carrier, as it were), and the pleasure of hearing
the lines clearly and sensitively ennunciated without the aid and distortion of
electronic amplication cannot be underestimated. Get there if you can!

Re: The SHAKSPER Advisory Board

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0467.  Monday, 24 June 1996.

From:           Stephanie Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 21 Jun 1996 10:31:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 7.0370  The SHAKSPER Advisory Board
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0370  The SHAKSPER Advisory Board

Due to a long desired sabbatical I will be offline for some months, so wish to
say how much I have enjoyed the past year, learning, chatting, and crossing
swords with the listmembers of SHAKSPER. I think it far and away the most
interesting venue on the internet that I have experienced. I have taken note of
the newly appointed members of the board and their books, and intend to read as
many of them as I can. I am sure that this will be a marvelous education in
current thinking about Shakespeare.

In parting I have one request. Please give the authorship question some
breathing room. If you are in a position whereby you can encourage or
discourage discussion and particularly research, please adopt the noble policy
"let me not be an obstacle." If you yourself think the question of no value,
please allow those who do to follow up on their ideas. I know of one highly
placed and frequently published academic who will admit to a strong interest in
Oxford's candidacy, but who assures us that to mention it would be career
suicide. I know of a brilliant student who never got a grade lower than a B
plus in anything, who got a C in a theater class due to a paper promoting the
authorship of Oxford. There are many such stories. I do not know for a fact
that the Earl of Oxford wrote the Shakespeare canon, but I do know that unless
and until paid researchers who are open to the possibility begin to seek out
answers to the many anomalies, questions and confusions that have given rise to
the authorship issue, it will never go away.

Thanks to the many listmembers who have sparred with me, offered me so
graciously information I sought, and who have encouraged me privately. And
thanks Hardy and all who keep this list going. I know it's a lot of work.

Stephanie Hughes

P.S. I will send my new mailing address to SNL as soon as I know what it is.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.