Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1997 :: March ::
Re: Anachronisms; Facsimiles; Goddard; Hamilton
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.033.  Wednesday, 5 March 1997.
 =

[1]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 04 Mar 1997 14:51:46 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0311  Re: Anachronisms =


[2]     From:   Sean K. Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 04 Mar 1997 20:20:38 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0312  Re: Facsimiles =


[3]     From:   Louis Marder <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 04 Mar 97 16:39:53 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0221  Re: Harold Goddard =


[4]     From:   Gabriel Wasserman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 04 Mar 1997 17:09:49 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0310  Re: Re: Hamilton =



[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 04 Mar 1997 14:51:46 -0500
Subject: 8.0311  Re: Anachronisms
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0311  Re: Anachronisms

Gabriel Egan asks:

"How about. . . {r}apiers in C12 Denmark (HAM)?"

Well, Shakespeare's <italic>Hamlet</italic> couldn't possibly set in the
12th century.  Wittenberg didn't open as a university until the early
16th century, about 1502 as I recall.  And the "diet of worms" reference
is to Luther.  No, rather than considering these and other passages as
anachronistic, let's consider Hamlet as a 16th century Danish prince. =

Shakespeare wasn't legally bound to follow his sources precisely, was
he?

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean K. Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 04 Mar 1997 20:20:38 -0800
Subject: 8.0312  Re: Facsimiles
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0312  Re: Facsimiles

Hi,

I'm a little confused by both Mr. Velz and our former leader Ken
Steele's comments on folios.  I realize that certain changes were made
in the process of printing the folios, but does this mean that we should
necessary use the "ideal" edition of Hinman?  Isn't doing so merely to
substitute a supposed solidity for the contingency of Renaissance
publication practices?  Doesn't Hinman's process, of choosing the "best"
pages from amongst all those available, merely obscure the contingency
available in early modern (or modern, for that matter) printing, while
not truly eliminating it?  Does Hinman provide us with anything but
false confidence?

Curiously, =

Sean Lawrence.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Louis Marder <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 04 Mar 97 16:39:53 EST
Subject: 8.0221  Re: Harold Goddard
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0221  Re: Harold Goddard

I remember when I was in graduate school at Columbia University in N.Y.
that Oscar James Campbell came into the lecture hall with a long face. =

He said he had just received Goodard's M of S and was mad at this many
who presumed to know the meaning of Shakespeare.  When I moved to Kent
State University in 1956 I became acquainted with Eleanor Goddard, his
daughter, a fairly near neighbor.  I mentioned Campbell's comment and
she told me that her father had not given that name to the book.  He had
called it Shakespeare and War and under that name had tried for years to
find a publisher, without success.  Oxford finally took it on condition
that they could change the name - to, cleverly, The Meaning of
Shakespeare, a title that would guarantee its sale even until today when
everyone wants to know the meaning of Shakespeare. Shakespeare has no
one meaning - he has meanings, and that is his virtue and why critics
love to write about his work.  Who can say them nay?  Just as there is
no single acceptable issue of the plays - there are only different
editions.  Louis Marder, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Wasserman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 04 Mar 1997 17:09:49 -0500
Subject: 8.0310  Re: Re: Hamilton
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0310  Re: Re: Hamilton

> Well, I have learned a valuable lesson; namely, to be more careful what=

> I say and how I say it. When I first replied on the subject of Cardenio=

> and Mr Hamilton's books I wrote the "just because no one has a better
> theory does not mean we have to accept a crazy one."  I should have put=

> "crazy" in quotes since I was responding to, and using, Mr Wasserman's
> word choice regarding acceptable theories about  SMT.
> =

> I also felt my choice of qualifiers "it seems to me" and "I believe"
> would make it clear that I was reconstructing my opinion from memory-I
> read In Search of Shakespeare several years ago. At any rate, if I was
> "off the beam" (an interesting expression in my case since I used to be=

> a high-steel worker) thanks for the correction, I'll be more careful in=

> the future.  Now to the business at hand. I have never heard of the
> above listed poem "There was a Lover and His Lass" what can anyone tell=

> me about it.
> =

> Thanks
>  John Robinson
 =


"There was a Louer and His Lass" is a reputedly Shakespearian poem set
to music by Thomas Morley.  It is found on Pages 204-207 in a book of
Elizabethan Madrigals, Rounds, and Lute Songs.  I'll be damned if I can
remember the title, but I do remember that the editor for the music has
a name that is something like Noah Green, and the texts editor is W. H.
Auden.  I have the book lying around the house somewhere-I saw it just
yesterday-and the first verse goes like this, if my memory doesn't fail
me:

There was a louer and is lasse,
With a Hey, with a hoe, with a hey nonnie noe,
--------{I don't remember the next line}--------
In spring tme, in spring time, the onely prettie ring time,
When birds do sing hey ding-a-ding-a-ding.

I'm Sorry if you don't like my memorial reconstruction.  Meanwhile,
ponder this issue:  Is Moli=E9re's play *The Would-Be Gentleman* based on=

*Loues Labour's Lost*?
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.