1997

Re: Complete Works; A. L. Rowse

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1146.  Friday, 14 November 1997.

[1]     From:   John McWilliams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 15:02:12  +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1141  Re: Complete Works

[2]     From:   Stephanie Cowell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 16:22:12 -0500
        Subj:   Complete Works, and A.L. Rowse


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John McWilliams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 15:02:12  +0100
Subject: 8.1141  Re: Complete Works
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1141  Re: Complete Works

> Surely, this must be a joke: the NEXT definitive edition? Why from an
> author long since dead, we should demand a brand new definitive edition
> every year!
>
> What is the matter, can't you just ENJOY?

Dear P.H.,

It wasn't meant to be a joke... The Riverside has been the definitive
edition for a long time (not just a year) - by definitive, I mean the
one agreed to be the standard by scholars. Like the Margoliouth edition
of Marvell - anyone 'seriously' (sorry to use the word) interested in
Marvell knows that edition. I'm aware of textual difficulties with
Shakespeare and perhaps the idea of a standard edition is indeed out of
date, or was always an impossibility. I was hoping perhaps to raise some
discussion on this topic if anyone was interested - I think it's an
interesting topic, anyway.  Also, I want to buy a complete edition and
can't afford more than one - I was just asking advice as a few have been
published very recently, it's a tough decision and I thought the
list-folk might help.

Of course I enjoy Shakespeare (I just finished re-reading Henry IV Part
I and it's fantastic - very funny and really quite gripping). But JUST
enjoy... you're kidding, I'm a would-be academic - you can't expect me
to be that hedonistic, can you?

Cheers,
John

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephanie Cowell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 16:22:12 -0500
Subject:        Complete Works, and A.L. Rowse

This is my first response to the data base. My heart leapt up at John
McWilliam*s letter re the plethora of Shakespeare editions and his words
*Can't you just enjoy?* I am a historical novelist (*The Players: a
novel of the young Shakespeare,* out last spring from W. W. Norton) and
I just recently joined the Electronic Shakespeare.  I am quite
fascinated by what everyone has to say in all the e-mails I receive
daily, but my main interest and passion is reading the work itself.  I
want to let the words and characters wash over me, I swim in them, and
simply love them.  Now and then I've begun to wonder what's the matter
with me that I don't want to hunch over five editions comparing them.  I
simply want to be with WS's words and characters and through them, the
sense I get of the man, an emotional rather than a pedantic response.
Does that make me a lightweight Shakespearean? But I guess each fan to
his own methods of loving the writer and his work, the production and
purchase of new editions being one....my own, which is to try to make
him come alive in fiction, is scandalous enough to some!

By the way, for anyone interested, I have a little article in the next
Shakespeare Newsletter about  the late Dr. Rowse whom I knew and who was
my historical mentor and, to me, a kind, humorous, and generous man.
Does my affection and admiration for him make me persona non grata with
many scholars? Hope not!

Re: Seduction of Lady Anne

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1145.  Friday, 14 November 1997.

[1]     From:   Narrelle Harris <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 22:01:10 +0800
        Subj:   Re: RIII and Anne

[2]     From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 12:53:15 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1139  Re: Seduction of Lady Anne

[3]     From:   Scott Shepherd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 13:31:59 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1139  Re: Seduction of Lady Anne

[4]     From:   Bonnie Melchior <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 15:12:47 CST6CDT
        Subj:   The Beautiful Anne


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Narrelle Harris <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 22:01:10 +0800
Subject:        Re: RIII and Anne

Matthew Gretzinger said:

> If Anne is so soul-less, so
>lacking in will, what obstacle will be overcome in wooing her?  What
>triumph will Richard win sufficient to allow him such gloating?  The
>same problem occurs in the McKellen _Richard_.  Kristin Scott Thomas
>takes the Bloom approach a step further.  Bloom, "very grievous sick and
>like to die," looked drugged and detached in her final scenes.  Thomas
>is literally an addict.

I didn't read the Scott-Thomas portrayal this way.  I thought she was a
strong woman who, despite herself, was moved by Richard's eloquent
wooing, and became fascinated by him.  I thought this scene worked very
well, as I've often not quite believed others I've seen.  Her later drug
addiction I felt came from having married a man she finally realises
doesn't particularly care for her.  She has broken her own soul and
spirit by believing his protestations of love and discovering that she
has betrayed her self and her husband and son.

Narrelle Harris

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 12:53:15 -0500
Subject: 8.1139  Re: Seduction of Lady Anne
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1139  Re: Seduction of Lady Anne

Surely the moment on which the scene turns is the moment when Richard
offers her the sword and his vulnerable breast: pure power hanging
between them.  When she cannot seize it, it passes ineluctably to him.
Not that it doesn't belong to him from the outset.

A long time ago somebody proposed that Richard was first played by
Edward Alleyn, a giant of a man (helping to account for that group of
larger-than-life protagonists-Tamburlane, Faustus, Hieronimo).

Dave Evett

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Scott Shepherd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 13:31:59 -0500
Subject: 8.1139  Re: Seduction of Lady Anne
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1139  Re: Seduction of Lady Anne

With so much emotional speech in this scene, and in a play that so
mangles the real history it alludes to, I don't think any strictly
political "explanation" can be satisfying.  The scene reads as an
impossible seduction, not a beaten woman's shrewd career move.

I suggest this:  that the deformed man arouses compassion as well as
revulsion, and that Richard uses his pitiability to his advantage,
playing meek and even a bit simpleminded when it suits his purpose.  So

        He that bereft thee lady of thy husband
        Did it to help thee to a better husband

and such don't come off like a deliberately macabre amorous policy but
the sincere confused pleas of a love-struck halfwit.

Clearly Richard's strategy is to depict the murders as evidence of the
intensity of his devotion, and because this is a demented idea, it
behooves him to show a pitiable dementia.

This is just a suggestion for performance without much scholarly backup,
but isn't it conspicuous that this wooing success comes almost on the
heels of a soliloquy saying "because I'm deformed I can't woo" (evidence
against the popular truth-in-soliloquies theory), and isn't it proper
dramatic irony then for the deformity itself to clinch the seduction?

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bonnie Melchior <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 15:12:47 CST6CDT
Subject:        The Beautiful Anne

On the question of whether Anne should be beautiful, in my humble
opinion yes she should, because that beauty is emblematic in an
oppositional way.

The play as a whole seems to present ugliness as a manifest emblem of
evil, but the kind of evil associated with the "virtues" of effective
action in the political world (qualities represented by the Italian
*virtu*).  Richard's ugliness is constantly emphasized (he is for
instance a "bunchbacked toad"-I don't have my text here to look up the
exact quote).  Beauty, on the other hand, is associated with goodness
and is interpreted by Richard as a kind of contemptible weakness and
passivity.   Witness his opening statement that "grim-visaged War" has
been co-opted into capering to the lascivious warblings of a lute.
Richard says that he is too "deformed" and "unfinished" to court an
"amorous looking glass," so he will exert himself toward casting a
shadow in this "weak and piping time of peace."  Wooing and winning the
beautiful Anne signals his success (and he again brings up looking in a
mirror).

(Incidentally, I don't mean to say that the "goodness" in the play is
not problematized by being associated with self-interest and sometimes
stupidity.)

Bonnie Melchior
University of Central Arkansas

Qs: Advice; Brew; Bastards

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1143.  Thursday, 13 November 1997.

[1]     From:   Andrew Walker White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 15:50:38 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Advice to the Actors -- Research Question

[2]     From:   Joanne Gates <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 17:14:41 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Does Macbeth sell cars?

[3]     From:   Mark Lawhorn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 13:45:25 -1000
        Subj:   Query re: Henry Fitzroy and Thomas Winter


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Andrew Walker White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 15:50:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Advice to the Actors -- Research Question

I've recently come across a scenario for a Byzantine Mystery Play (well,
there's some controversy about its being Byzantine, but ...)-- the thing
that struck me, comparing its notes about the actors, along with a
parallel scenario written for the Jeu D'Adam, was its similarity to the
advice Hamlet gives the Players.

The usual stuff-suiting the action to the word, etc.-are there, along
with a few extras, like 'make sure they can read', which makes one
wonder how on earth they thought they could do without literate actors
...

But that's aside from the point.  I'm wondering if any studies have been
done on the evolution of the Advice to Actors, from the medieval period
to the time of Shakespeare.  It seems that there was some standard
warning given to directors of Mysteries, and I was hoping someone had
written or speculated on its evolution.

Anybody help me on this one?

Andy White
Arlington, VA

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joanne Gates <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 17:14:41 -0600 (CST)
Subject:        Does Macbeth sell cars?

As I listened yet again to the ad for the new Lexus, I heard Linda
Hunt's voice say,

Crystal water turns to dark
Boiling currents turn to drums
When something wicked this way comes

There seem to be two visual variants; one has the car coming out of the
mud and being unstrapped from the amphibious landing vehicle.
(subliminal flash of somewhat seductive woman's legs) I take it that the
first two lines are "made up"? I did a quick search of my hard copy
Bartlett's Q, no matches for these lines.  Nothing close in on-line
search of the complete Shakespeare texts for boiling or crystal, but
presumably the ad people have invented their own version of the witches'
brew.

Joanne Gates

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mark Lawhorn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 13:45:25 -1000
Subject:        Query re: Henry Fitzroy and Thomas Winter

I would be grateful if someone could point me to sources that include
information regarding Henry VIII's illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy,
and/or Wolsey's illegitimate son, Thomas Winter. I know that these
children received "various preferments" during their lifetimes, such as
Fitzroy's being named Duke of Richmond and Lord High Admiral and
Winter's eventual appointment as Archdeacon of Cornwall (despite the
Church of England's bar against the ordination of bastards).  Who
tutored these children? What sort of contact did their respective
fathers maintain with them? On what basis did rumors circulate that
Fitzroy was poisoned by Anne Boleyn and her brother?  Please reply
directly to me at either of the e-mail addresses listed below.  Many
thanks.  Mark

Mark H. Lawhorn
English Dept.
UH Manoa

The Perdita Project and Trinity/Trent Colloquium

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1144.  Thursday, 13 November 1997.

From:           Victoria Burke  <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 07:55:11 -0500
Subject:        The Perdita Project and Trinity/Trent Colloquium

[Editor's Note: These announcements appeared yesterday on FICINO
Discussion - Renaissance and Reformation Studies"
<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..]

Please excuse cross postings.

THE PERDITA PROJECT:  EARLY MODERN WOMEN'S MANUSCRIPT COMPILATIONS at
Nottingham Trent University, England

We would like to announce The Perdita Project: Early Modern Women's
Manuscript Compilations.  Perdita will be a comprehensive guide to over
400 manuscripts compiled by women in the British Isles during the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.  Perdita was established at
Nottingham Trent University in January 1997, and will produce a database
and guide to be published on the Internet.

The manuscripts which will be described are poetic miscellanies,
commonplace books, medical and cookery recipe books, autobiographical
writing, religious material, and account books.  Each manuscript will be
described in two short articles, which will offer a detailed description
of the contents of the manuscript and a biography of its compiler(s).
Information such as names, dates, places, authors of transcribed
material, and a first- and last-line poetry index will be available in a
list format.

Please visit our web site for further information
(http://human.ntu.ac.uk/foh/ems/perdita.html).
----------------------------------------------------------------

TRINITY/TRENT COLLOQUIUM
Michaelmas 1997: Trinity College, Cambridge
Saturday November 29th
1.30- 6.00 p.m.

Speakers include:
Jane Stevenson, University of Warwick ("Women, Writing, and Scribal
Publication in the Sixteenth Century")

Elizabeth Clarke and Victoria Burke, Nottingham Trent University ("The
Perdita Project: Early Modern Women's Manuscript Compilations")

Sarah Ross, St. Hilda's College, Oxford ("Katherine Austen's "Book M,"
1664-1668")

Please contact Jeremy Maule at Trinity College, Cambridge, CB2 1TQ to
book a place at the Colloquium and to receive further details.  E-mail:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The Trinity/Trent Colloquium is a series of three half-day conferences
to bring together those interested in or working on early modern women's
manuscripts, in a variety of different disciplines.  The next colloquium
will be on March 11th at Mansfield College, Oxford.

For further information see the Perdita web site, and click on
"seminars."  (http://human.ntu.ac.uk/foh/ems/perdita.html)

Victoria Burke and Elizabeth Clarke
The Perdita Project
Faculty of Humanities
Nottingham Trent University
Clifton Lane
Nottingham
NG11 8NS
England
e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: Err; Conception; No Matter; Cleopatra; Isabella

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1142.  Thursday, 13 November 1997.

[1]     From:   David M Richman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 09:54:12 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1133  Q: Casting Err

[2]     From:   Scott Shepherd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 10:26:49 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1137  Angelo's Sexuality

[3]     From:   Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 22:10:44 -0500
        Subj:   Genital Conception

[4]     From:   Scott Shepherd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 11:50:47 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1138  No Matter

[5]     From:   Naomi Liebler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 18:12:56 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1137  Re: Cleopatra

[6]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 00:52:49 +0
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1126 Running


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David M Richman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 09:54:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.1133  Q: Casting Err
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1133  Q: Casting Err

On double casting Comedy of Errors:  We used puppets for the final
scene. Each puppet was made to resemble closely his human twin.  Each
human actor ran he appropriate puppet.  The effect worked quite
well-eliciting gasps and ovations.  Another production made inventive
use of mirrors: each twin speaking and being answered by his reflection
in the glass.  David Richman

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Scott Shepherd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 10:26:49 -0500
Subject: 8.1137  Angelo's Sexuality
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1137  Angelo's Sexuality

>"Conception" does not have its modern genital meaning.  It means in
>context my idea of her or my fantasy of her.  (Sh's word for our genital
>"conception" is "engendering".)
>
>What the carrion does in the sun is rot, surely.  Swelling is from
>gasses trapped in a rotting corpse.  The physical language of this play
>is quite strong and sometimes repellent.

>John Velz,

I can't find "carrion" in MM, so I think you might be referring to
Hamlet's

"For if the sun breed maggots in a dead dog, being a good kissing
carrion,--Have you a daughter? . . . Let her not walk i'th' sun:
conception is a blessing, but not as your daughter may conceive. . . ."

But surely conception means engendering here, since the sun's propensity
for breeding is what Ophelia needs protection from.

Scott Shepherd

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 22:10:44 -0500
Subject:        Genital Conception

Hamlet: Let her not walk i' the sun. Conception is a blessing, but not
as your daughter may conceive--friend, look to it.

He was warning Polonius not to let Ophelia THINK?

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Scott Shepherd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 11:50:47 -0500
Subject: 8.1138  No Matter
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1138  No Matter

Certainly "no matter" and "it is no matter" meant then what "it doesn't
matter" means now, but combinations with the phrase are limited (in
Shakespeare) to

        no matter FOR something (e.g. "it is no matter for that")
        no matter WHAT/WHERE/WHITHER/HOW/WHO
        no matter IF

I find only 2 no matter ifs, in 2G and 2H4, but that might support a
reading like

        mere words, no matter [if] from the heart

but the if not actually being in the text makes this a bit of a stretch,
even for an under meaning.

Also it's impossible to read the Troilus line without thinking of
Hamlet's "Words words words" to which Polonius responds "What is the
matter my lord?" which pretty clearly suggests that
words:matter::text:meaning (or something like that), and that these
terms, while perhaps not quite technical, had particular connotations
when talking about (written) language.

[5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Naomi Liebler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 18:12:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 8.1137  Re: Cleopatra
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1137  Re: Cleopatra

Mike Sirofchuk writes in defense of Cleopatra, "Lest we forget-much  of
what we readily know of Cleopatra was written by the victors, and they
are known for   telling history to suit themselves." You might want to
take another look at what SHAKESPEARE readily knew of Cleopatra-in
North's Plutarch's _Life of Antony_. Cleo gets approximately half of
that narrative, and it's a much more favorable account than anything
Plutarch has to say about what's-his-name.  Moreover, the narrative
makes all of the points about Cleopatra's erudition, her diplomacy, her
regal dignity, etc., that Mike offers. And Plutarch, of     course, was
a Greek (Theban, actually) who ultimately went to live among, but  never
was one of, "the victors."

Cheers,
Naomi Liebler

[6]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 00:52:49 +0
Subject: 8.1126 Running
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1126 Running

John Velz wrote

> Syd Kasten's suggested staging for Isabella's entrance in MM
> 4.1 is interesting, but we must remember that she is a
> would-be nun to whom eternity is more real than time.

She's not a nun, surely, but a nun-to-be. And one who's unhappy about
the restrictions:

ISABELLA  And have you nuns no father privileges?
FRANCESCA  Are these not large enough?
ISABELLA  Yes, truly. I speak not as desiring more,
  But rather wishing a more strict restraint
  Upon the sisterhood, the votarists of St Clare.
(1.4.1-5)

I don't know about you, but when I feel I've betrayed my  thoughts by
incautious probing, I say something like "Yes,  truly. I speak not as
desiring more..."

I think Bernice Kliman argued that Isabella and Claudio are recently
orphaned, and that the former's entry into the order is reluctant.

Gabriel Egan

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.