1998

Re: Shakespeare in Texas

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0348  Wednesday, 15 April 1998.

[1]     From:   Karen Eblen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 13 Apr 1998 15:01:11 MDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0342 Re: Fran Dorn; Shakespeare in Texas

[2]     From:   Jimmy Jung <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 14 Apr 1998 10:54:18 -0400
        Subj:   Shakespeare in Texas


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Eblen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 13 Apr 1998 15:01:11 MDT
Subject: 9.0342 Re: Fran Dorn; Shakespeare in Texas
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0342 Re: Fran Dorn; Shakespeare in Texas

In July, even Fort Worth, Texas has an adequate Shakespeare in the
park-- for the last twenty-something years.

Best,
Karen Eblen

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jimmy Jung <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 14 Apr 1998 10:54:18 -0400
Subject:        Shakespeare in Texas

My apologies for sounding so snide when I asked about Shakespeare in
Texas.  I have been assured that everything is bigger in Texas and that
includes the bard.  The following were forwarded to me from another list
member.

YES!  YES!  Just a sample.
        http://www.globesw.org
        http://www.under.org/tsf/
        http://www.rtis.com/reg/roundtop/shakes.htm

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

Re: Shakespeare and the King James Bible

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0346  Wednesday, 15 April 1998.

[1]     From:   Curt L. Tofteland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 13 Apr 1998 11:23:02 EDT
        Subj:   Re: the King James Bible

[2]     From:   Andrew Murphy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 13 Apr 1998 16:27:19 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0343 Shakespeare and the King James Bible


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Curt L. Tofteland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 13 Apr 1998 11:23:02 EDT
Subject:        Re: the King James Bible

Greetings,

For an interesting activity which helps fuel the mystery around whether
or not William was one of the writers of the King James Bible --- check
out the 46th Psalm --- count 46 words from the beginning of the psalm
and circle the word ---- count 46 words from the end of the psalm and
circle the word --- see what you come up with . . .

Curt L. Tofteland
Producing Director
Kentucky Shakespeare Festival

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Andrew Murphy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 13 Apr 1998 16:27:19 +0100
Subject: 9.0343 Shakespeare and the King James Bible
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0343 Shakespeare and the King James Bible

At the risk of sounding like a thoroughly shameless self-publicist . . .

I am currently editing a collection entitled _The Renaissance Text:
Theory, Editing, Textuality_ for Manchester University Press. The book
will appear in 1999 and will include a chapter on filiations between the
Shakespeare First Folio project and the King James Bible.

(With due apologies for such a mercenary use of the list . . .)

Andrew

Re: Jessica

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0344  Monday, 13 April 1998.

[1]     From:   Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 10 Apr 1998 12:01:53 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0338 Elopement

[2]     From:   Phyllis Rackin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 10 Apr 1998 13:10:13 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0327  Related to Merchant

[3]     From:   Ed Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 10 Apr 1998 15:18:50 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   SHK 9.0327


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Apr 1998 12:01:53 -0500
Subject: 9.0338 Elopement
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0338 Elopement

As always Dave Evett advances the game. I have two disagreements (or
straws to suggest), however.

(A) It may be that Lorenzo is "sealed back into [his] tribe" (though I
don't exactly see that *he* was ever outcast; the elopement seems to me
one-sided, from Shylock and his tribe) and that Jessica is welcomed
there (though folks disagree about this). But Portia's group cannot
simply be called *Jessica's* tribe: she cannot be welcomed home.

Indeed, this marriage is more transforming of a bride more different
than most. The presence of the element of Jewishness, however it is to
be understood, is what for me most marks off The Merchant of Venice in
general and this marriage in particular from the circumstances of the
other comedies. (1) All marriages (and thus all elopements) entail
transformations of age/life-stage, familial role (child to spouse, as
Steve Urkowitz rightly says), and, at least often (and especially for
women) familial orientation (agnates to affines). (2) Some marriages
(see city comedy, for instance, which The Merchant of Venice  prefigures
in extremely rich ways) also entail economic status advancement, as does
Jessica's: exiting life with a city/working father, becoming an elite
and non-working wife. Such change is often though not always applauded:
see, for instance, Gertrude's marriage to Sir Petronel Flash in Eastward
Ho!, to which Alan Dessen usefully alludes. There is maybe not a change
in wealth per se, however, in Jessica's case.

(3) Jessica's marriage additionally entails (for her, not for Lorenzo)
conversion from Jew to Christian, a transformation she welcomes where
her father suffers it, as degrading. I think this complicates any
"welcome home" sense of Jessica's new life. It's a very complex kind of
change. Jim Shapiro makes it clear that the Jew might be thought
different in religion, race, or nation, and that this multiplicity could
retard a sense of the availability of "true" conversion (if "race" is
indelible, or if "nation" -- a shared diasporic citizenship-cannot
coexist with loyal English or Venetian identity). Perhaps such
resistance was present for some early modern auditors. Many modern
auditors and readers certainly find it disturbing. In any case, the
"welcoming" details that Dave justifiably cites do not make me, at
least, forget the Jew-baiting of earlier portions of the play. That may
in fact help explain, for some justify, Jessica's (possible) no-regrets
rewriting of her identity. It reminds me of Randy Newman's striking song
"Dixie Flyer," about Jews in New Orleans during World War II:

Her brothers and her sisters drove down from Jackson, Mississippi,
In a great green Hudson driven by a Gentile they knew.
Drinkin' rye whiskey from a flask in the back seat
Tryin' to do like the Gentiles do.
Christ, they wanted to be Gentiles too.
Who wouldn't down there, wouldn't you?
An American Christian. God damn!

I don't know whether we think we have any sense of Jessica suffering her
father's spat-upon life. She speaks of not being a daughter to his
manners, but flight into "passing" often involves rejecting the values
of the oppressed along with the pains of oppression.

(B) I think the reference to "treasons, stratagems, and spoils" also
refers, at least as easily, to Lorenzo's theatricalized masquer's
abduction of Jessica (or Jessica's burglary of her father) as to the
unmusicked man's lack of sweet harmony. The objection to music is by no
means an unambiguous negative in Shakespeare, in my view. It can suggest
suspicion of artfulness (Shylock despises the Christians with varnished
faces, and Hotspur echoes this in another key). But again, maybe this
drifts into like and dislike: some think The Merchant of Venice closes
in sweet harmony, some in repellent smugness, as is well known. Such
differences aren't fully arguable.

Frank Whigham

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Phyllis Rackin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Apr 1998 13:10:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 9.0327  Related to Merchant
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0327  Related to Merchant

I've always thought that the reference to Leah's ring was probably
included for the light it sheds on Portia's and Nerissa's rings (all
initially gifts, all subsequently used as payments, etc.)

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Apr 1998 15:18:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Comment:        SHK 9.0327

Frank Whigham usefully sums up and then adds to the continuing
discussion about the end of 3.1 and the meaning(s) of Jessica's
"transition/ transformation." He provides 7 ways of looking at it, and
every one seems to have merit. David Evett, on the other hand, says that
if we don't like what Jessica does, we have to build our interpretation
from outside of the text. I agree with Frank and, in this instance,
disagree with Davie. Jessica's actions and what they may imply are at
the very heart of *Merchant*, and they evoke ambivalent reactions from
the audience, as the monkey symbol itself demonstrates. On the on hand,
the monkey may, as Bill Godshalk points out, stand for Art and the new,
better life that Jessica seeks. On the other hand, to give away a family
heirloom for a monkey is not so nice, and what Jessica may be saying
about Shy-lock, Leah, (and, by implication, herself) is not so nice.  I
guess what I'm saying here is that it seems to me that Jessica's action
is designed to call forth multiple interpretations and multiple
reactions, many of which are admirably adumbrated by Frank Whigham.

Doesn't the trial scene work the same way, David and Frank? Look at it
one way and you see a rabbit; look at it another way and you see a duck!

Yours,
Ed Taft

Appeal; Panel Proposal; Musical Errors

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0345  Monday, 13 April 1998.

[1]     From:   Mary Evelyn Martin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 10 Apr 1998 08:57:27 -0700
        Subj:   SHK 9.0336  Shakespeare's Continuing Appeal

[2]     From:   Melissa D. Aaron <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 10 Apr 1998 18:36:44 -0500
        Subj:   Panel Proposal

[3]     From:   Marilyn A. Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 11 Apr 1998 19:39:44 -0400
        Subj:   Info Needed on Musical Version


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mary Evelyn Martin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Apr 1998 08:57:27 -0700
Subject: Shakespeare's Continuing Appeal
Comment:        SHK 9.0336  Shakespeare's Continuing Appeal

Thanks for the article.  To use the vernacular, the Bard RULES!

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Melissa D. Aaron <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Apr 1998 18:36:44 -0500
Subject:        Panel Proposal

I would like to propose a panel at the Annual Meeting of the Group for
Early Modern Culture, to be held November 19-22, 1998 in Newport Rhode
Island.

The theme for the conference is "Antagonism, Contradiction, Resolution."

I'd like to propose a panel, tentatively called "Commodity, the bias of
the world."  I'm interested in topics that reflect on Early Modern
English trade wars and economic conflict, whether it's the War of the
Theatres from an economic point of view, or economic issues such as
inflation, or the use of credit, or the liberties as enterprise zones,
or trade gilds, or. . .  you get the idea.  I'd especially like to see
proposals involving economic readings of early modern texts, possibly
suggesting some sort of historical resolution.

My own work is the economic history of the King's Men.

Please send any inquiries, or 250-word abstracts, off-list, to

Melissa D. Aaron
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
by May 1st.

And thank you to the rest of the list for your patience.

Melissa Aaron

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marilyn A. Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 11 Apr 1998 19:39:44 -0400
Subject:        Info Needed on Musical Version

My colleague the director is looking for  the source of licensing for

The Comedy of Errors Musical done by Trevor Nunn at the Royal
Shakespeare Company in 1986 or 87.   Starred Roger Rees,  he of Robin
Colcourt-of-Cheers fame, and was fabulous. Showed on PBS in '87 or '88,
or perhaps '89.

Anyone w/ information, please contact me off-list:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

She hopes to do a production in the near future, if she can obtain
rights to the piece.

Thanks so much!
Marilyn Bonomi

Re: PBS Show; Shakespeare and the King James Bible

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0343  Monday, 13 April 1998.

[1]     From:   Simon Malloch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 10 Apr 1998 23:41:45 +0800
        Subj:   Re: PBS Show & Shakespeare's life

[2]     From:   Albert Misseldine <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 10 Apr 1998 12:47:52 -0400
        Subj:   Shakespeare and the King James Bible

[3]     From:   Werner Habicht <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 10 Apr 1998 23:00:42 +0200
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0335  Re: PBS Show, King James Bible

[4]     From:   Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, April 13, 1998
        Subj:   Shakespeare and the Bible


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Simon Malloch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Apr 1998 23:41:45 +0800
Subject:        Re: PBS Show & Shakespeare's life

Peter T. Hadorn remarks:

> I find that I do have to do a lot of damage control with my students
> about the many things they hear about Shakespeare.  I constantly have to
> remind them that there are many things about Shakespeare that we simply
> do not know.

This,  to me, would suggest grounds for introducing into Shakespearean
courses a lecture or two on the poet's life,  the problems one faces
with the paucity of evidence,  and the consequent problems in applying
that evidence to his life in general,  not to mention his plays and
poetry.  Indeed,  it was something that I missed when first introduced
to Shakespeare.  "Sorely missed" I now say,  having read Schoenbaum.

But on the other hand,  as we all know,  it is not conducive to "good
taste" to talk about authors and authorship, even if it were to save
students from believing what they read in books like *The Shakespeare
Conspiracy*, and then trying to find traces in the plays, or more often
trying to make the plays fit the theory.

Simon Malloch.

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Albert Misseldine <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Apr 1998 12:47:52 -0400
Subject:        Shakespeare and the King James Bible

Peter Hadon asks how the rumor that Shakespeare wrote part of the King
James Bible got started. I don't know that, but I remember in the
Autobiography of Malcolm X, Malcolm comes up with this idea: the fact
that Shakespeare wasn't asked to help with the translation of the King
James Bible proves that he didn't write his plays, because if he was
such a good writer, why didn't the King ask him? Maybe the rumor spun
off from that?

Albert Misseldine

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Werner Habicht <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 10 Apr 1998 23:00:42 +0200
Subject: 9.0335  Re: PBS Show, King James Bible
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0335  Re: PBS Show, King James Bible

Rudyard Kipling may have been the first (was he?)  to imagine
Shakespeare as a co-translator of the King James Bible. It would be a
pity to miss his story "Proofs of Holy Writ" (1932); for, however
"wrong" it may be, it tells us a good deal about - among other things -
the art of translation.

Werner Habicht

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Date:           Monday, April 13, 1998
Subject:        Shakespeare and the Bible

The subject of Shakespeare authorship of come of the King James Bible
was discussed in 1994 and again in 1996 on SHAKSPER.  I send the command
SEARCH SHAKSPER BIBLE to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and got back 101
hits.  I have edited the file I received in return to show the relevant
articles.

Item #   Date   Time  Recs   Subject
------   ----   ----  ----   -------
002168 94/04/02 07:58   20   SHK 5.0300 Q: Shakespeare and the King
James Bible
002169 94/04/03 07:22   56   SHK 5.0301 Re: Shakespeare and the King
James Bible
002179 94/04/05 08:27  130   SHK 5.0310 Re: Limericks; KJV; AYI
Weather/Music;
003914 96/01/29 13:00   56   SHK 7.0079 Qs: Theatrical Working
Conditions; Shakespeare & the Bible
003917 96/01/30 09:32   63   SHK 7.0082 Re: Psalm 46
003921 96/02/01 14:48   49   SHK 7.0086 Re: Shakespeare and the Bible
003926 96/02/03 11:47   37   SHK 7.0091 Re: Shakespeare and the Bible
003933 96/02/09 11:26  145   SHK 7.0098 Re: Cross-Dressing; Audio Oth;
Bible;
003944 96/02/13 09:53  179   SHK 7.0109 Abridged MND; CD ROM;
Shakespeare and the Bible
003954 96/02/15 11:56  217   SHK 7.0119 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, Horatio,
and Characters
003957 96/02/15 12:19  204   SHK 7.0122 Re: John Bulwer; The KJV Bible
003966 96/02/20 09:05   53   SHK 7.0131 Qs: American Festival Theatre;
John Porter
003967 96/02/20 09:07   49   SHK 7.0132 Shakespeare and KJV--and
Cranmer's Psalms

To order a copy of these postings, send the following command:

GETPOST SHAKSPER 2168-2169 2179 3914 3917 3921 3926 3933 3944 3954 3957
3966-3967

>>> Item #2168 (2 Apr 1994 07:58) - SHK 5.0300 Q: Shakespeare and the King James Bible

I heard a rumor recently that Shakespeare may have had something to do
with
the creation of the King James Bible.  This seemed unlikely to me but,
not
                               ^^^^^
being a biblical scholar (or even much of a Shakespearean one), I had no

>>> Item #2169 (3 Apr 1994 07:22) - SHK 5.0301 Re: Shakespeare and the King James Bible
There is a cipher regarding Shakespeare's connection, or rather,
translation
of the Bible or his contribution to it. The King James Bible was
completed
       ^^^^^
when Shakespeare was 46 years old. If you go to the 46 Psalm and go to
the 46
***************
word "Selah" which may be interpreted as "spear". Allegedly, this
"spear" is
not in the original Bible and is an interpolation. Hence, by this
cipher,
                    ^^^^^
as with many Shakespeare ciphers, we know that Shakespeare translated
the
Bible or some part of it. If you believe this, well we have a little
Bridge
^^^^^
in New York...
**************
Dana Goldstein asks whether Shakespeare had anything to do with the
creation
of the King James Bible--I'm no expert on the creation of that work, but
                  ^^^^^
here's a bit of curious information imparted to me by a colleague
several
***************
In 1610, the year before the Bible was completed, Shakespeare would have
                             ^^^^^
been 46 years old.  Turn to Psalm 46 in the King James, and count,
first,

>>> Item #3914 (29 Jan 1996 13:00) - SHK 7.0079 Qs: Theatrical Working Conditions; Shakespeare & the Bible

Just read Anthony Burgess' speculations on Shakespeare's possible
contributions
to the King James Bible in 1610.  (He suggests the 46th Psalm, the 46th
word of
                  ^^^^^
which is "shake" and the 46th word from the end of is "spear", was
written by

>>> Item #3917 (30 Jan 1996 09:32) - SHK 7.0082 Re: Psalm 46

>Just read Anthony Burgess' speculations on Shakespeare's possible contributions
>to the King James Bible in 1610.  (He suggests the 46th Psalm, the 46th word of
                   ^^^^^
>which is "shake" and the 46th word from the end of is "spear", was written by
***************
heard this story to a different tune.  The speculation I heard implied
that the
publishers of this edition of the King James Bible meant the 46th Psalm
as a
                                             ^^^^^
tribute to Shakespeare.  Further evidence of this stems from the fact
that

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.