1997

Re: MM "Glass"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0690.  Friday, 20 June 1997.

[1]     From:   W.  L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 21:23:44 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0680  Re: MM "Glass"

[2]     From:   Joe Shea <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 23:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0684 Re: MM "Glass"


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W.  L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 21:23:44 -0400
Subject: 8.0680  Re: MM "Glass"
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0680  Re: MM "Glass"

I haven't followed this entire thread, so I ask from ignorance: has
anyone cited G. K. Hunter's little essay (published some 30 years ago)
on "glassy essence"?  I was writing an explanatory note on the passage
at the time, but after reading Hunter, I realized that I had nothing
substantial to add.  The "glassy essence" is a reflection in a looking
glass, and apes were represented in the Renaissance as partial to making
mouths at themselves in mirrors.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joe Shea <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 23:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 8.0684 Re: MM "Glass"
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0684 Re: MM "Glass"

Wouldn't "glass" be the Shakespearean "glass," i.e., a telescope --
looking through a telescope in the dark, which-until night visions
scopes-reveals little or nothing of the landscape?  The King James
version would be consistent with that interpretation in terms of its
timing.

Best,
Joe Shea
Editor-in-Chief
The American Reporter

Q: *Shakespeare Survey 46*

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0689.  Friday, 20 June 1997.

From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, June 20, 1997
Subject:        Q: *Shakespeare Survey 46*

About six months ago, I discovered that I had misplaced my copy of
*Shakespeare Survey 46: Shakespeare and Sexuality,* leaving a noticeable
gap on my bookshelf.

At the MLA Convention in December, I ordered a copy to replace it, only
to find months later that Cambridge UP has no more copies.

I've also tried several companies that specialize in locating book, all
to no avail.

Does anyone know where I can purchase a copy of *Shakespeare Survey 46*?

Qs: Book on Stephen Greenblatt; OJ and Othello

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0687.  Thursday, 19 June 1997.

[1]     From:   Jurgen Pieters <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 08:40:26 +0200
        Subj:   Book on Stephen Greenblatt

[2]     From:   Georgianna Ziegler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Jun 97 15:32:00 PDT
        Subj:   OJ and Othello


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jurgen Pieters <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 08:40:26 +0200
Subject:        Book on Stephen Greenblatt

Dear list-members,

As a spin-off of work on my doctoral thesis on the theoretical sources
of Stephen Greenblatt's New Historicism, I am currently preparing a
collection of essays on Greenblatt's work. Some of them have been
presented on a conference at the University of Ghent (Belgium) where
Professor Greenblatt was one of the keynote speakers. Other
contributions included papers on Greenblatt and Certeau, Greenblatt and
Girard, a theoretical expose on Greenblatt's notion of social energy
etc. I am still looking for a number of texts to be included in the
collection, which I hope to finalize somewhere in the spring of next
year. Theoretical contributions will be preferred to practical
applications of NH.

Any list-members having any suggestions can contact me privately at the
following address: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Jurgen Pieters
Vakgroep Ned. Lit & ALW
Blandijnberg 2
B-9000 Gent

0032/9/264.40.97 (tel)
0032/9/221.46.80 (fax)

Thanks,
Jurgen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Georgianna Ziegler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Jun 97 15:32:00 PDT
Subject:        OJ and Othello

This is a bit "old hat" by now, but I've had an inquiry trying to
identify the best 1-5 sources that summarize the OJ/Othello motif.
There were, of course, various editorials, articles, etc. but I'm
interested to know what SHAKSPERians think were the "top" among this
group.

Thanks in advance for this foray into another part of pop culture (after
you all did so well with Shakespeare in modern music!).

Georgianna Ziegler
Folger Library

Re: peripetia; *Comedy*; Lear

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0688.  Thursday, 19 June 1997.

[1]     From:   David Crosby <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 09:13:32 -0500
        Subj:   Re: peripetia

[2]     From:   Cary M. Mazer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 11:33:19 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0679  Re: *Comedy of Errors*

[3]     From:   Ed Pixley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 12:30:32 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0678  Re: Lear


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Crosby <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 09:13:32 -0500
Subject:        Re: peripetia

Dear Susan:

I'm sure you'll get many responses to your request for elucidation. I
would suggest that you may want to find a fuller dictionary. My copies
of the Random House Collegiate and American Heritage both list
"peripeteia" with "peripetia" as an alternate spelling. Its meaning is a
sudden turn or change of direction, especially in a literary or dramatic
work.

By the way, it is not directly related to "peripatetic"; the prefixes
are the same, but the root is different. For a fuller explication of
"peripeteia" you should consult a dictionary of literary terms, of which
there are many good ones.

David Crosby

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Cary M. Mazer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 11:33:19 -0400
Subject: 8.0679  Re: *Comedy of Errors*
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0679  Re: *Comedy of Errors*

I don't want to continue this thread unless there is widespread
interest, and I normally shy away from the questions of intentionality
and fidelity that Daniel Lowenstein raises in his generous response to
my posting about Comedy of Errors (if you're interested, you might want
to check out my article on the subject, "Rebottling:  Dramaturgs,
Scholars, Old Plays, and Modern Directors," in Dramaturgy In American
Theatre:  A Casebook, ed. Susan Jonas, Geoffrey Proehl, and Michael Lupu
[Fort Worth:  Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1997], pp. 292-307).
Suffice it say for now that directors and their collaborators make a
theatre piece out of the raw materials at hand, including, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, the dramatic script, and that the resulting works is THEIRS
and not the dramatists.

Lowenstein does raise an important and valid point, though, about
whether the resulting work should be advertised as being THE work by THE
playwright.  Charles Marowitz wisely gave new titles to his collages
after Shakespeare plays, as Dryden, Davenant, et. al. *sometimes* did in
to their Restoration "improvements."  I should note, though, that the
reasons for doing this do *not* necessarily correlate to one's fidelity
to the script, but to how much the "story" one is choosing to tell with
the script deviates from the story that is (evidently) being told by the
dramatist.  With Peter Pan, we used the entire 1920s published version
of the 1904 script, virtually uncut, and without a single line altered;
but the story we were telling was so different from the one that Barrie
wrote (at least the *surface* play that he wrote)--in our theatre piece,
six people act out the script of Peter Pan in order to understand why
their Peter-Pan-obsessed friend killed himself, and discover that the
play resonates with issues of sex and death, or, more specifically,
masturbation and suicide-that we chose to call the resulting theatre
piece "Playing with Peter"  (pun intended), and we advertised it as
"incorporating the text of J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan (unsuitable for
children)."

Cheers,
Cary

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Pixley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 12:30:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 8.0678  Re: Lear
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0678  Re: Lear

Sorry, folks.  I really thought I was sending my long response to Stuart
Manger about Lear off-list.  Since it did actually get on, I hope some
of you had the patience to read through it. I would be particularly
interested in reactions to my two-world theory for the last half of the
play.  If you have reactions, feel free to send them off list to
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. you feel that they have enough merit for
general discussion.

Ed Pixley

Re: Accents and Pronunciation

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0686.  Thursday, 19 June 1997.

[1]     From:   Jonathan Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 11:07:59 +0000 (GMT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0673  Re: Accents in Shakespeare's Plays/London

[2]     From:   Harry Hill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 08:06:49 +0000 (HELP)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0677 Re: Pronunciation


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jonathan Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 11:07:59 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: 8.0673  Re: Accents in Shakespeare's Plays/London
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0673  Re: Accents in Shakespeare's Plays/London

The thing that strikes me is how *little* explicit comment on accent,
and representation of it there is in Shakespeare.  There are a few very
stereotyped set pieces - but put alongside the constant fascination with
and comment on semantics, there is an absence of accent.

I'm sure Early Modern London was full of different accents, and suspect
the various acting companies were too (one piece of authenticity the
Globe has probably got right) - I also suspect that accents weren't
really such an issue.  If you live in a speech community where the
language is undergoing standardisation, you have a relatively high
tolerance for variation in phonology and syntax.

Jonathan Hope
Middlesex University

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Harry Hill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 08:06:49 +0000 (HELP)
Subject: 8.0677 Re: Pronunciation
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0677 Re: Pronunciation

        Andy White
        Is quite right:
        RP
        and BBC
        can't stir the bowels
        because of their vowels.

That, it strikes me, is the cause of the watery verse-speaking that
seems to have begun at the turn of the century. If we listen to Ben
Greet, Forbes-Robertson and even the early Maurice Evans, our ears are
touched by purer, less diphthongised vowels.

Hearing Arthur Bouchier do some Macbeth reminds us of the effect that a
richly imagined dagger can have on the soul, as the `a' of the word does
not stray from its near verticality. He still uses, as does
Forbes-Robertson, the `meh' for 'my', however.

To listen to Gielgud's `Oh that this too too solid flesh' is to here a
truly RP `o' at the beginning; to hear Burton's is to join in the
exclamation ourselves.

        Harry Hill

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.