1997

Re: Parallel Scenes

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0233. Tuesday, 18 February 1997.

[1]     From:   Adrian Kiernander <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, February 17, 1997
        Subj:   SHK 8.0227  Re: Parallel Scenes

[2]     From:   Dale Lyles <DaleLyles@AOL>COM>
        Date:   Monday, February 17, 1997
        Subj:   Re: Parallel Scenes


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Adrian Kiernander <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, February 17, 1997
Subject: Re: Parallel Scenes
Comment:        SHK 8.0227  Re: Parallel Scenes

Bernice

Several years ago David Groves, a colleague from Victoria University in
Wellington, did a wonderful cut-and-paste student production of parallel
scenes from _Twelfth Night_ and the commedia erudita play that
Shakespeare used as a model, _Gl'Ingannati_. The same male actor played
both Sebastian and his equivalent (whose name I've forgotten), and in
the final scene where the two plots came together he was confronted with
two identical twin sisters. It was dazzlingly clever and extraordinarily
moving.

The pattern was alternating scenes from both plays until the last, when
the final scenes from each play were interwoven almost line by line.

It's a technique I'd recommend.

I should mention that David teaches both Theatre and Italian and this
was part of the Italian Department program, so the Shakespeare scenes
were performed in English and the _Gl'Ingannati_ scenes in Italian. This
again was a wonderful effect, but the whole production could have worked
as well theatrically in English only.

Adrian

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dale Lyles <DaleLyles@AOL>COM>
Date:           Monday, February 17, 1997
Subject:        Re: Parallel Scenes

"Mish-mosh of MM and MAdo"????  What on earth???  The mind boggles.
Please elucidate.

Thanks,
Dale Lyles

Re: Harold Goddard

Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.232. Tuesday, 18 February 1997.

[1]     From:   John Boni <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 17 Februray 1997
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0221 Re: Harold Goddard

[2]     From:   Dan Lowenstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 17 Februray 1997
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0221 Re: Harold Goddard

[3]     From:   Chris Stroffolino  <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 17 Februray 1997
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0221 Re: Harold Goddard


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Boni <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 17 Februray 1997
Subject: 8.0221 Re: Harold Goddard
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0221 Re: Harold Goddard

In recalling my experience in reading Goddard's ideas on Shakespeare, I
think of T.S. Eliot's characterization of Samuel Johnson as "a dangerous
man to disagree with on the basis of facts" (hope I've recalled the gist
of that).  So it is with Goddard:  One may not agree with his arguments,
but was one is hard put merely to dismiss them.

John M. Boni

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dan Lowenstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 17 Februray 1997
Subject: 8.0221 Re: Harold Goddard
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0221 Re: Harold Goddard

Professor Malloch asks for references to worthwhile writings of Harold
Goddard, other than the book, "Meaning of Shakespeare."  Goddard's essay
entitled "The Merchant of Venice" is very much worth reading.  Although
I do not agree with Goddard's defense of Shylock, his essay is the best
statement of the "antitraditionalist" position that I have seen.

Goddard's essay, which was originally published in the late 1940's, is
reprinted in Bloom's 1991 anthology, "Shylock."  Since I don't have that
work in front of me, it is possible that it had appeared as a chapter in
Goddard's book.  If so, I apologize for the redundant reference.

Best,
Dan Lowenstein

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris Stroffolino  <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 17 Februray 1997
Subject: 8.0221 Re: Harold Goddard
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0221 Re: Harold Goddard

Like John Velz and Mary Allen Todd, I have found Goddard
fascinating....I disagree with Mr. Velz, however, that "Goddard has no
axe to grind." One need only look at his intro chapters in which he
criticizes certain rival critical "schools" of his times-especially the
performance oriented and historical (old historical I guess you'd call
them now) critics as well as those who adhere to the biographical and/or
intentional fallacy....(also, his chapter in which he take the two sons
of Cymbeline and makes them into critical principles to prefer reading
Shakespeare as "poetry" rather than as "merely" a dramatist - as a
practicing poet, I have much admiration for Goddard's relatively wide
sense of poetry in a somewhat visionary poetry(which for him was
considered radical, subversive, leftist-whereas today, for many, such
kind of poetry, is often considered conservative.) and the way he is
able to quote poets like Dickinson and Stevens in his discussion of
Shakespeare (poets who at the time he wrote the book were hardly the
cultural ICONS they have become today...it is something I would like to
do if I ever publish a book on Shakespeare with more unknown poets like
Laura Riding, Carla Harryman, even John Ashbery, Bernadette Mayer,
etc-i.e.). Also, Goddard is one of those PERSONALITY critics that
doesn't come around too often. Even when I disagree with him, I am MOVED
to disagree in a way I am with say JANET ADELMAN or RENE GIRARD in a
more contemporary scene. I do think at times he gets a little too much
on a certain high horse and does not value wit or comedy enough, but
then we're all mortal. And for a book written in a very different era,
it ages better than many (though it is definitely of its time in its
liberal humanism and anti-ww2 sentiments....) Chris s.

Re: Ideology

Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0230. Monday, 17 February 1997.

[1]      From:  W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 21:20:48 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0224  Re: Ideology

[2]     From:   Paul Hawkins <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 17 Feb 1997 08:46:22 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0224 Re: Ideology


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 21:20:48 -0500
Subject: 8.0224  Re: Ideology
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0224  Re: Ideology

> But asserting
>that Shakespeare's worldwide consumption is simply a consequence of his
>excellence is to ignore the political, economic, and cultural processes by
>which canonicity works,

writes Gabriel Egan.

Excellence, of course, is not an inherent quality, but a matter of what
we humans have determined to call "excellent." But surely "canonicity"
is not as easily analyzed as Gabriel seems to suggest. We scholars don't
seem to know or comprehend all the "processes" by which an author
becomes "canonical." We don't agree on how works become "canonical" nor
do we agree on what works are in the "canon."  Is Hemingway "in" or
"out"? What about Lydgate?

If by "cultural" we mean "of or pertaining to the environment
constructed by humans for humans," then I suppose we'd have to
acknowledge that some kind of cultural process determines artistic
"excellence." But is the selection of an author for the
not-so-easily-identified "canon" really an "economic" and/or "political"
decision?

Wouldn't Middleton or Heywood or Shirley do just as well economically
and/or politically as the Great English Renaissance Playwright?  Or why
not Jonson?

I am convinced that we humans set the standards of excellence for all
artistic endeavors, and that there is no metaphysical, transcendent
standard for judgment. But that we set these standards for political
and/or economic reasons remains to be proven-to my mind, at any rate.
And doesn't primate psychology have something to do with esthetic
selection?

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Paul Hawkins <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 17 Feb 1997 08:46:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0224 Re: Ideology
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0224 Re: Ideology

I am glad that Gabriel Egan and I appear to agree on Shakespeare's
having at least some transcultural appeal.

However, when he claims, "the transcendence of the works was asserted as
part of the colonialist project," is it not equally possible to
interpret the historical record as follows:  the transcendence of the
works was asserted on what we can call aesthetic grounds; in turn,
Shakespeare so elevated proved appropriable for the colonialist project?

Armies and empire builders may carry canons with them, but this doesn't
mean they create them.

Shakespeare's excellence alone may not be the reason he is read all over
the world, but I don't think, as Gabriel Egan sometimes seems to, that
his being read all over the world has created his excellence.

Paul Hawkins

Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays

Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.231. Tuesday, 18 February 1997.

[1]     From:   Jonathan Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, February 17, 1997
        Subj:   SHK 8.0229  Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio,          Early
Plays

[2]     From:   David Skeele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, February 17, 1997
        Subj:   SHK 8.0229  Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio,          Early
Plays

[3]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, February 17, 1997
        Subj:   SHK 8.0229  Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio,          Early
Plays


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jonathan Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, February 17, 1997
Subject: Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio,          Early
Comment:        SHK 8.0229  Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio,          Early
Plays

Casting false modesty aside, quite a few of the plays mentioned are
considered in Jonathan Hope, 1994, The authorship of Shakespeare's plays
(Cambridge UP), and just about all are covered in a very useful section
in S. Wells and G. Taylor's Textual Companion to the Oxford Shakespeare
(Oxford).

Eric Sams publishes regularly in the journal Notes and Queries (he has a
very hostile review of my book in the December 95 issue).

Jonathan Hope
Middlesex University, UK

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Skeele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, February 17, 1997
Subject: Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio,          Early
Comment:        SHK 8.0229  Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio,          Early
Plays

>I am also interested in Shakespeare Apocrypha--You know, th'old
>            *A Yorkshire Tragedy*
>            *Muceodorus*
>            *The Merry Devil of Edmonton*
>            *Edward II*  (Actually by Marlowe)
>            *Edward IV*  (Actually by somebody or other [not by Billy])
>            *Sir Thomas More*
>            *Sir Thomas Lord Cromwell*
>            *Arden of Feversham*
>            *Fair Em*
>             etc.

To Gabriel Wasserman,

An interesting source for info about Shakespearean apocrypha is a
nineteenth-century edition of his works: The Tallis Shakespeare (1856).
Look for the edition called "Doubtful Plays," edited by Henry Tyrell,
Esq.  It features solid introductions to most of the plays listed above,
with lots of fascinating nineteenth-century arguments for or against
their inclusion in the canon.  It is a little difficult to find, but a
good university library might well have it, as will the Folger.

                                                Best Wishes,
                                                David Skeele

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, February 17, 1997
Subject: Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio,          Early
Comment:        SHK 8.0229  Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio,          Early
Plays

                BIBLIOGRAPHY of Edward III

Bradbrook, Muriel C. Shakespeare and Elizabethan Poetry. London: Chatto
and Windus, 1951. 209-210. "The unity of theme in Edward III and its
similarity to that of Henry V does not  seem to have been recognized"
(209).

Dobson, Willis Boring.  Edward the Third: A Study of the Composition of
the Play in Relation to Its Sources. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of
Texas, Austin, 1956. [From Bethany Nazene College, Bethany, OK]

Everitt, E. B. and R. L. Armstrong. Six Early Plays Related to the
Shakespeare Canon. Anglistica XIV. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger,
1965. Edward III, ed. R. L. Armstrong, 195-250. I use this modernized
text and its line numbers. I change Armstrong's "Audeley" to "Audley" as
does Tucker Brooke.

Galway, Margaret. "Joan of Kent and the Order of the Garter," Univ. of
Birmingham Historical Review 1 (1947): 36-40. Which countess was it,
anyway?

Gransden, Antonia. "The alleged rape by Edward III of the countess [sic]
of Salisbury," English Historical Review 87 (1972):333-344. The story
apparently begins with Jean de Bel, Chronique de Jean le Bel, ed. J.
Viard, and may be French propaganda. Le Bel called the countess "Alice"
(335). In one poem, Artois is blamed; see B.J. Whiting, Speculum 20
(1945): 261-78. On Artois, see H. S. Lucas, The Low Countries and the
Hundred Years' War (1929): 124.

Horn, Frederick David. The Raigne of King Edward the Third: A Critical
Edition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Delaware, 1969. (MUI - 69-21,
946)

Hoy, Cyrus. "Renaissance and Restoration Dramatic Plotting," Renaissance
Drama 9 (1966): 247-264.

Jackson, MacD. P. "A Note on the Text of 'Edward III'," Notes and
Queries 216 (1971): 453-4.

Jackson, MacD. P. "'Edward III,' Shakespeare, and Pembroke's Men," Notes
and Queries 210 (1965): 329-31.

Koskenniemi, Inna. "Themes and Imagery in Edward III," Neuphilologische
Mittielungen 65 (1964): 446-80.

Kozlenko, William. Disputed Plays of William Shakespeare. New York:
Hawthorn, 1974. Reproduces the text edited by Henry Tyrrell (London,
1860). Plagiarizes Muir's work as an introduction.

Lapides, Fred, ed. The Raigne of King Edward the Third: A Critical,
Old-Spelling Edition. Renaissance Drama, A Collection of Critical
Editions. New York: Garland, 1980. With a thorough introduction and
notes.

Mann, Francis Oscar, ed. The Works of Thomas Deloney. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1912.

Melchiori, Giorgio. Shakespeare's Dramatic Meditations: An Experiment in
Criticism. Oxford, Clarendon: 1976. 42-47, 57-59, etc. Argues that
"Sonnet 94 - and a good number of the others - were written after and
not before Edward III" (45), and notes another parallel between the play
and the sonnets (I.ii.95-97, and Sonnet 18.3).

Metz, G. Harold, ed. Sources of Four Plays Ascribed to Shakespeare: The
Reign of King Edward III, Sir Thomas More, The History of Cardenio, The
Two Noble Kinsmen. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1989.
Thoroughly reviews the scholarship on the play (3-42). Regarding
authorship, he concludes that the traces of Shakespeare's "work in the
second part of the play . . . are not quite sufficient as a basis for
the claim that he is the sole author of Edward III" (20).

Muir, Kenneth. The Sources of Shakespeare's Plays. London: Methuen,
1977.

Muir, Kenneth. Shakespeare as Collaborator. New York: Barnes & Noble,
1960. 10-55. Notes parallels with Shakespeare's undoubted work, and
believes one theory would cover all the facts: "Shakespeare . . . was
hastily revising a play by another dramatist" (30).

Osterberg, V. "The 'Countess Scenes' of Edward III," SJ 65 (1929):
49-91. Links between Edward III and Shakespeare's undoubted work.

Painter, William. The Palace of Pleasure. ed. Joseph Jacobs. 3 vols.
1890. New York: Dover, 1966.

Pratt, Samuel M. "Edward III and the Countess of Salisbury: A Study in
Values." University of Mississippi Studies in English, 4 (1983): 33-48.
Notes Deloney's poem but doesn't see the importance of the poem for
dating the play.

Proudfoot, Richard. "The Reign of King Edward the Third (1596) and
Shakespeare," Proceedings of the British Academy 71 (1985):169-85.

Rutherford, Vera Randolph. "The Play of Edward III: Its Sources,
Structure, and Possible Authorship." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Texas, Austin, 1927.

Schaar, Claes. Elizabethan Sonnet Themes and the Dating of Shakespeare's
Sonnets. Lund, 1962. 117-35.

Slater, Eliot. The Problem of  The Reign of King Edward III: A
Statistical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Tillyard, E. M. W. Shakespeare's History Plays. 1944; London: Chatto &
Windus, 1959. 111-14. E3 is "one of the most academic and intellectual
of the Chronicle Plays" (111).  The "unifying principle of the play" is
"the education of . . . Edward III and the Black Prince" (113). The play
is "the most steadily thoughtful of all the Chronicle Plays outside
Shakespeare" (114).

Tucker Brooke, C. F., ed. The Shakespeare Apocrypha. Oxford: Clarendon,
1908.

Warnke, Karl and Ludwig Proescholdt, ed. Pseudo-Shakespearian Plays.
Revised ed.  Vol. III: King Edward III.  Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1886.

Wentersdorf, Karl.  The Authorship of  Edward III. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Cincinnati, 1960.

Wentersdorf, Karl. "The Date of Edward III," Shakespeare Quarterly 16
(1965): 227-31.

Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays

Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0229. Monday, 17 February 1997.

[1]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:   Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 17:21:28 -0500
Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0226  Q: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio,
        Early Plays

[2]     From:   Warner Crocker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:   Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 19:17:32 -0600
Subj:   RE: SHK 8.0226  Q: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio,
        Early Plays


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 17:21:28 -0500
Subject: 8.0226  Q: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio,
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0226  Q: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio,
Early Plays

Gabriel Z. Wasserman asks:

> Does anyone know where to find articles by the iconoclastic
>Shakespeare scholar Eric Sams, besides in TLS, which I have no access to.

Sams has recently edited <italic>Edward III</italic> for Yale University
Press.  I have not yet seen it, but I suppose he will there give a
fairly thorough bibliography of attribution studies.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Warner Crocker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 19:17:32 -0600
Subject: 8.0226  Q: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio,
Comment:        RE: SHK 8.0226  Q: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio,
Early Plays

The newly christened Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival will be presenting
several plays you mentioned, (I remember mentions of Cardenio, Edmund
Ironside, Thomas More, and Merlin) as a reading series to accompany
their next season. For further info you can contact them at
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. They recently changed their name to CSF from
Fahrenheit Theatre Company.

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

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.