1997

Re: New Riverside Edition

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0747.  Friday, 11 July 1997.

From:           Georgianna Ziegler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 10 Jul 97 18:00:00 PDT
Subject:        Riverside Edition

A further update on the Riverside mis-printings that I thought might be
of interest.  Yankee Book Pedlar, one of the largest vendors of modern
books to libraries in this country, reports that after our alert, they
checked part of their current stock of the Riversides and all the ones
they checked were defective!  They say, further, "It sounds like the
book had a second print run that went awry, and the publisher may need
to recall all the copies shipped against that second print run. . . I
would hope they would at least provide some kind of errata sheet, if
they don't reprint."

But just think of the irony, SHAKSPERIANS!  Many of us spend weeks
tracking down printing variations in 16th century editions when we can
have our very own in 1997!

Georgianna Ziegler
Folger Library

Various Re: Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0746.  Thursday, 10 July 1997.

[1]     From:   Chris Clark <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 9 Jul 1997 17:00:43 -0400
        Subj:   Madness of Hamlet

[2]     From:   Chris Clark <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 9 Jul 1997 17:00:47 -0400
        Subj:   To Be Or Not To Be? Let Be

[3]     From:   Chris Clark <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 9 Jul 1997 17:00:51 -0400
        Subj:   Ophelia's 'Pregnancy?'


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris Clark <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 9 Jul 1997 17:00:43 -0400
Subject:        Madness of Hamlet

> As for why Ophelia gets such rotten treatment from Hamlet, keep in mind
> that he knows she is there to spy on him, and she refuses to admit that
> she's working for Polonius and Claudius.

This is conjecture surely? I know that Dover Wilson reckons that there's
an Enter Hamlet during the planning of the loosing of Ophelia, but we
can't really be sure that that's what was intended (can we?), though I
agree that it probably WAS the case... if there's some proof for this
argument beyond Dover Wilson, then it would be tres useful for the
argument I'm taking.

Also, if, as I believe, Hamlet is sane and suffering from melancholy
separately from his antic disposition, then what is Hamlet doing blaming
the murder of Polonius on 'madness' in the confrontation with Laertes?
Is he lying through necessity [and having been corrupted by all the evil
around him], or being polite? I suspect it's more just keeping up the
claim of madness, and to show that he has finally realised that to make
his way he cannot just take the path of virtue all the time...

Chris

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris Clark <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 9 Jul 1997 17:00:47 -0400
Subject:        To Be Or Not To Be? Let Be

In my edition of Hamlet (Arden, based on Q2), Jenkins writes in the
notes that 'Let be' in Hamlet's dialogue with Horatio just before the
beginning of the duel has been 'wrongly' viewed as a continuation of the
observations about 'readiness is all' and that it is *not* the answer to
'To be or not to be.'

The thing is, that this theory does seem compellingly likely to me. The
more I consider it, the more it makes sense, because it ties in with his
character and the delay, showing that it is this whole point of view
that is the fatal flaw (I like this) or alternatively that fate rules
and there is no point in resisting (but this is possible)...

What do you guys think of this interpretation?

Chris

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris Clark <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 9 Jul 1997 17:00:51 -0400
Subject:        Ophelia's 'Pregnancy?'

I have in many places seen the theory that Ophelia is pregnant. The
*idea* that she and Hamlet might have had relations of that kind does
not strike me as particularly feasible... surely all the stuff about
whores and fishmongers etc is aimed at Polonius and women in general
because of the actions of Gertrude which have tainted Hamlet's mind,
rather than any basis in fact?

The graphic depiction of at least some form of intimacy that I saw in
Branagh's Hamlet disappointed me, because the relationship between
Hamlet and Ophelia is one thing that I interpret as something pure and
beautiful, wrecked by the actions of the older generation... [which
links in nicely with the view of the old that was expressed in Lear,
no?  Surely this shows that if the old did not act so irresponsibly, the
young would have no problems] the view that the whore-images have any
basis in fact disgusts me... yes, I'm quite willing to accept the
language is there - loosing, horse and carters, remove the violet... set
a blister, conceive, nunnery, etc - and yet why speak of 'honourable
fashion' etc if it were not so? [okay, to get away with it,
obviously...] I'm interested in seeing views on both sides of this, as I
really do want to see how people can back this up...

Some might argue that in religious drama (as which Hamlet can easily be
interpreted) only the guilty are punished, leaving Ophelia open to some
crime [the implication of which would be obvious], but I view this play
as a tragedy, and am intrigued by the parallels between Hamlet, Laertes
& Fortinbras [Holy Trinity to bring religion in again?] and Hamlet and
Ophelia [the madness contrast, the dispriz'd love, etc...]

Just a few theories I felt the need to expound. Thanks very much.

Chris

Re: Riverside and Norton Shakespeares

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0744.  Thursday, 10 July 1997.

[1]     From:   Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
        Date:   Thursday, July 10, 1997
        Subj:   Riverside Edition

[2]     From:   Hiroyuki Todokoro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 10 Jul 1997 13:47:33 +0900
        Subj:   Norton Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Date:           Thursday, July 10, 1997
Subject:        Riverside Edition

In SHK 8.0731, Bill McRae inquired about printer's errors in the New
Riverside Shakespeare.  In SHK 8.0735, Mike Field complained that his
copy of the New Riverside was defective.

After these two posts, I examined my own copy of the New Riverside and
detected nothing wrong with it.

Yesterday, while I was at the Folger Shakespeare Library, I took the
time to examine the four copies in the collection.  The one in the
Reference Room was just as mine at home without the problems Mike Field
discovered; however, the other three copies were just as Mike had
described.

It would surely appear that some copies were misprinted, and I would
suggest that anyone who has one of these should return it for one that
is not misprinted.

PS: Members might be interested to read my mini-review of the Riverside
in the Fall 1996 issue of *The Shakespeare Newsletter* (46.3: 67) in the
Table of Contents column.  In the upcoming Spring 1997 edition, I review
the Bevington updated 4th edition and the Norton.

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hiroyuki Todokoro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 10 Jul 1997 13:47:33 +0900
Subject:        Norton Shakespeare

Dear members,

I want to order a copy of Norton Shakespeare. Please let me know the
editor's name and the full title.

Thank you.

Best wishes,
Todok.

[Editor's Note: Greenblatt, Stephen, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, and
Katherine Eisaman Maus, eds.  *The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the
Oxford Edition.  With an essay on the Shakespearean stage by Andrew
Gurr.*  New York: Norton, 1997.]

Re: WSB on CD-ROM; Stratford Season

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0745.  Thursday, 10 July 1997.

[1]     From:   Tom Clayton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 7 Jul 1997 14:28:57
        Subj:   RE: SHK 8.0740  World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM

[2]     From:   Laura Fargas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 7 Jul 1997 15:07:30 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0739  Stratford, Ont. Season


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Clayton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 7 Jul 1997 14:28:57
Subject: 8.0740  World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM
Comment:        RE: SHK 8.0740  World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM

Heartiest congratulations, Jim. *Well* earned, and richly deserved.

Tom

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Laura Fargas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 7 Jul 1997 15:07:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 8.0739  Stratford, Ont. Season
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0739  Stratford, Ont. Season

Does anyone have a souvenir program from the 1994 Stratford season that
he or she could part with or at least xerox?   The Theater Store says it
has sold out.

Please let me know by private e-mail.

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

Re: Musical Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0743.  Thursday, 10 July 1997.

[1]     From:   David Lucking <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 07 Jul 1997 17:03:27 +0200
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0741  Musical Question

[2]     From:   Margaret H. Dupuis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 07 Jul 1997 14:36:06 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0741  Musical Question

[3]     From:   Stephan B. Paragon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 8 Jul 1997 01:00:42 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0741 Musical Question

[4]     From:   Hiroyuki Todokoro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 08 Jul 1997 14:50:47 +0900
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0741  Musical Question


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Lucking <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 07 Jul 1997 17:03:27 +0200
Subject: 8.0741  Musical Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0741  Musical Question

I presume you refer to Beethoven's Opus 132 in A minor, the third
movement of which (entitled "thanksgiving on recovery from illness") is
written in the Lydian tonality (F major without B flat). The quartet has
a certain relevance to literature, since it almost certainly influenced
T. S. Eliot (who mentions it in a letter to Stephen Spender), while if I
remember correctly the third movement provides the musical accompaniment
to Spandrell's death in Huxley's "Point Counter Point".

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Margaret H. Dupuis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 07 Jul 1997 14:36:06 -0700
Subject: 8.0741  Musical Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0741  Musical Question

To H.R. Greenberg,

You are looking for Beethoven's String Quartet in A minor, op. 132
("Song of Praise to God in the Lydian Mode").  Actually, it is only the
slow movement that is written in Lydian Mode.

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephan B. Paragon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 8 Jul 1997 01:00:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 8.0741 Musical Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0741 Musical Question

E flat Major.

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hiroyuki Todokoro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 08 Jul 1997 14:50:47 +0900
Subject: 8.0741  Musical Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0741  Musical Question

3rd Movement of Beethoven's Quartet No15 in A minor, Opus 132, is
composed in the Lydian mode.  Is this what you wanted to know?

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.