Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1998 :: May ::
Re: Succession; Chess; Crabs; Female Roles
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0480  Tuesday, 19 May 1998.

[1]     From:   Andrew Walker White <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 18 May 1998 21:45:16 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Succession Question

[2]     From:   Peter T. Hadorn <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 19 May 1998 09:07:45 -0500
        Subj:   Chess game in *Tempest*

[3]     From:   Keith Richards <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 18 May 1998 16:28:34 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0470  Crabs

[4]     From:   Ed Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 19 May 1998 10:40:06 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Female Roles


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Andrew Walker White <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 18 May 1998 21:45:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Succession Question

I have heard it said, with regard to Burghley's son, that he received a
pension from the Spanish crown upon his retirement.  This being the same
son (perhaps a Laertes figure) who extracted Elizabeth's endorsement of
James VI for the succession.  Since I'm not well read on these matters,
anything to be read by way of primary sources, to either confirm or deny
this little tidbit?

Andy White
Arlington, VA

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter T. Hadorn <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 19 May 1998 09:07:45 -0500
Subject:        Chess game in *Tempest*

Forgive me for returning to an earlier thread, but I was just grading my
exams for my Shakespeare course and a student suggested something
interesting about the chess game that Ferdinand and Miranda are
playing.  Simply put, he suggested that it is a game that requires
intellect over emotion.  That is, it is a game that requires that they
appreciate each other's minds rather than their bodies.

This then reminded me of Othello 1.3, in which Othello and Desdemona
claim that they love each other for the other's minds and not for lust
(ll.  249-264).  In both plays, however, I think we should be less than
convinced by these assertions.

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Keith Richards <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 18 May 1998 16:28:34 -0400
Subject: 9.0470  Crabs
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0470  Crabs

I'm not trying to start an international incident about this, but with
participants in the U.K., Iran, the Netherlands and Canada I guess
that's exactly what I've done.

On Saturday, May 16, Julia Mullen wrote:

>Keith Richards is ticking off Stanley Wells for the latter's perfectly
>correct (if not 'politically' to all) suggestion that people read an
>annotated text.

>If Keith Richards or anybody else has need of an annotated text which is
>too expensive where he or she is, it might be better just to ask if
>anyone can help.

I really do hope that I'm not "ticking off" Stanley Wells. This was not
my intention. What I was suggesting is that he could have considered
what might be behind the difficulties in consulting annotated editions
faced by Azita Ghodsi Rasi.

I do _not_ think it "politically incorrect" to encourage the use of
annotated editions of the plays. I do think it a little hasty of Stanley
Wells to suggest the obvious (consult an annotated edition) without
putting some thought into why this wasn't done.

And as Bill Godshalk remarks, we had a good time. Let's continue to do
so.

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 19 May 1998 10:40:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Female Roles

If David Kathman wants to think of me as an "Oxfordian," that's fine
with me. I will simply point out the obvious: he did not deal with the
evidence that I quote from James Forse. Instead, he purposefully
misinterprets what I write (twice!). I think that David Kathman thinks
of anyone who disagrees with him as an "Oxfordian"!

--Ed Taft
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.