Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1997 :: May ::
Qs: Flowers; Shr.; poor/pure; Riverside
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0515.  Thursday, 1 May 1997.

[1]     From:   Brad Morris <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 12:19:28 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Flowers

[2]     From:   Dom Saliani <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 12:10:41 -0700 (MST)
        Subj:   Taming

[3]     From:   Tom Hodges <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 13:47:55 GMT-6
        Subj:   Re: *KL* 1.4, Poor vs. Pure

[4]     From:   Gabriel Wasserman<
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 18:27:50 -0400
        Subj:   Questions


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brad Morris <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 12:19:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Flowers

I was wondering if anyone could help me find an internet tool or
something similar. I'm trying to find something along the lines of "The
Flowers of Shakespeare." I could do a word search, but then I'd have to
do each flower, and since I don't know all the flowers he wrote about,
I'm kind of stuck.  Anyone?

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dom Saliani <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 12:10:41 -0700 (MST)
Subject:        Taming

I have agreed to dramaturge next September for a high school production
of "Taming" with a twist.

In our version, we plan on having Petrucia tame Katarino. Yes gender
reversal. Baptista, Lucentia, Trania, Hortensia, Gremia, Vincentia will
be the other females in the cast.

Grumio, Biondello, Bianco will be the males.

Has anyone seen a version similar to this or worked on a gender reversed
production of Taming?

We are looking for advice/suggestions.

Please either respond through the list or directly to me.

Thanks in advance.

Dom Saliani

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Hodges <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 13:47:55 GMT-6
Subject:        Re: *KL* 1.4, Poor vs. Pure

The recent *KL* threads prompt me to try out a pet idea.  It deals with
1.4, when Lear asks Kent-in-disguise, "What art thou?" and Kent
responds, "A very honest fellow, and as poor as the king."  Why not
render Kent's word *poor* onstage as *pure*?

Has someone out there in ShaksperLand seen a production or read a study
taking this angle?  Kent's "as poor as the king" has often struck me as
a curious departure in his application for "service."  And hearing
*pure* allows Lear to make an even better joke out of the situation.

On the other hand, a cursory check of Spevak's *Concordance* did not
yield, at least to me, any similar poor/pure puns; furthermore, neither
Furness' *Variorum* nor recent *KL* editions I've seen supply any
authority for such a reading of 1.4.21.  Nor has my survey of
bibliographies turned up commentary on this point.

Despite the above, and acknowledging that Shakespeare's "authentic
production" is a shadow of a phantom further obscured by my
twentieth-century biases, I still wonder if the *pure* reading merits
consideration. (1)These two words shared the forms *puyr peur puir*
during those years when English was shifting its vowels.  (2)Kent in a
previous line warns the audients he will "defuse" his speech.  (3)The
*pure* angle raises, I think, dramatic and thematic possibilities
congruent with the play as a whole; for example if Lear banters with
this "stranger" about a poor/pure king, it reveals a witty and maybe
even genial side of that choleric dolt from 1.1.  In addition *pure*
focuses on the "purity in poverty" theme of *KL* and does so in a manner
worthy, it seems to me, of WS the Punmeister.

I have, as you can tell, sifted this idea until I've become enamored of
it.  And, yes, that way madness lies.  I would like to hear from, or
about, others who have plowed this same ground or who can help me better
appreciate "...as poor as the king."

Thanks, Tom Hodges

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Wasserman<
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 18:27:50 -0400
Subject:        Questions

Question: The new *Riverside Shakespeare* (with *E3* and *FE*)--On
3/7/97, Patrick Gillespie wrote (SHK 8.0330) :

>I hope this isn't old territory. I noticed the new Riverside in the
>bookstore and saw that they had included the Elegy *and* that they had
>included Edward III. Concerning the latter, I was curious by whom they
>were persuaded. Was it Eric Sams (thinking of his latest book) or does
>this decision go back to Muir and others. If it was Sams, I wonder now
>at the status of Edmund Ironside. Also, I had only time for a brief
>look, did they add anything else?
>
>And on a related subject: Are the older King Lear

You mean *Leir*?                 [or do you mean Q1?]

> and King John
>seriously being touted as Shakespeare's and if so, on what grounds or
>to whom and where should I look for material? If this is an old subject,
>send to me privately. I don't want to bore anyone.

I have not found the *New Riverside* anywhere.  (Nor, for that matter,
has a friend who would like to buy it for me for my birthday.)  It was
not in books in print.  What happened?  How come they're still selling
the 1974 one in Barrnes and Noble?

Totally unrelated question:  How is "Harry LeRoy" a "Welshman"?
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.