1998

Re: Elizabethan Staging ("just plain wrong")

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0458  Tuesday, 12 May 1998.

[1]     From:   Jeffrey Myers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 11 May 1998 13:24:44 -0400
        Subj:   "just plain wrong"; was Re: Elizabethan Staging

[2]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 May 1998 02:31:01 +0100 (BST)
        Subj:   Re: Elizabethan Staging

[3]     From:   Stephen Longstaffe <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 May 1998 17:03:00 +0100
        Subj:   Elizabethan Staging


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jeffrey Myers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 11 May 1998 13:24:44 -0400
Subject:        "just plain wrong"; was Re: Elizabethan Staging

> Mr. Egan's 'just plain wrong' sadly reflects someone who sets
> himself up
> as the --- 'be all and end all' --- expert on all things Folio

Isn't it a fascinating time in which we live?  It's wonderful that no
one can be "just plain wrong" anymore, and even more wonderful that
pointing out someone's error turns one into the "--- 'be all and end
all' --- expert" in the field.  If I were only the be all and end all
expert on things punctuational, I'd point out Mr. Tofteland's odd ---
use of the --- dash.  Alas, I am not such an expert.

> --- I
> doubt that Mr. Egan's research sources are any more valid than Mr.
> Tucker's ---

Do you base this conclusion on anything other than impression and
prejudice?

> since neither Egan or Tucker lived during Shakespeare's
> day, it is all open to interpretation

If this is the qualifying criterion for validity in interpretation, how
sad that we can never know anything about Shakespeare's theater.  And
one corollary of this argument must be that what a contemporary says
about the art of his time must be valid, since that subject is
presumably not open to interpretation.  Oh, wondrous!  I think I'll
begin writing a book tomorrow on the late 20th-century stage since
whatever I say will be correct.

> --- frankly, I
> personally put more
> stock in Mr. Tucker's instincts, being a practicing,
> professional man of
> the theatre rather than an arm chair quarterback . . .

And certainly these practicing, professional men of the theater have
never misled us.  Only three days ago I saw a production of Euripides'
_The Trojan Women_ that was set in the American South at the end of the
Civil War.  How insightful, to show Southern slave-holding women
lamenting their own slavery!  Of course, I never realized that these
women became slaves, but that just shows you how wrong an arm-chair
quarterback can be.  I had to conclude that this director thought
Lincoln was the equivalent of Agamemnon.  Who would have known?!  It
reminded me of the wonderful _Timon of Athens_ I once saw, which was set
in Japan.  Audiences sure are lucky to have people of the theater
providing such deeply significant insights!
With apologies to the rest of the theater people on the list,

Jeffrey Rayner Myers
Associate Professor of English and Arm-Chair Quarterback _par
excellence_
Department of English
Goucher College

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 May 1998 02:31:01 +0100 (BST)
Subject:        Re: Elizabethan Staging

Leaping to one's own defence is never a dignified activity, but Curt L.
Tofteland's misunderstanding of the basis of my comments on Patrick
Tucker's ideas needs to be corrected:

> Mr. Egan's 'just plain wrong' sadly reflects someone
> who sets himself up as the --- 'be all and end all' ---
> expert on all things Folio --- I doubt that Mr. Egan's
> research sources are any more valid than Mr. Tucker's ---
> since neither Egan or Tucker lived during Shakespeare's
> day, it is all open to interpretation

The conflict is not between Tucker's theory and mine (I haven't got one
of my own), but between Tucker and the entire world of Shakespearian
bibliographical scholarship. Anybody with the slightest interest in how
the Folio came to be made should be aware that Tucker's ideas about it
were long ago discredited.

>  --- frankly, I personally put more
> stock in Mr. Tucker's instincts, being
> a practicing, professional man of
> the theatre rather than an arm chair quarterback . . .

Of course, Tofteland is at liberty to trust any authority he chooses.
But someone who works with actors should guide them away from theories
which can be exploded by just a glance at reputable works of
scholarship. (None of which are mine, alas.)

Gabriel Egan

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephen Longstaffe <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 May 1998 17:03:00 +0100
Subject:        Elizabethan Staging

When I played Petruchio some years back in the round, we made use of the
proximity of the audience  in a couple of interesting ways. The 2:1
encounter (I am he am born to tame you...) turned the middle square into
a kind of verbal wrestling ring, with the two circling one another. And
the Richard III-like 'thus have I politicly begun my reign...' became a
kind of seminar, with Petruchio picking on audience members for the
questions, 'And that is ... ? To watch her!' and 'He that knows better
how to tame a shrew, now let him speak'. The sense of how the play's
sexual politics was definitely affected by whose eye you caught during
these exercises and how much you tried to get the audience onto your
side.

Re: Edmund Shakespeare, Hamnet, Katherine

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0457  Tuesday, 12 May 1998.

[1]     From:   Ed Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 11 May 1998 13:24:54 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Edmund, Hamlet, etc

[2]     From:   Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 11 May 1998 13:28:44 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0445  Edmund Shakespeare, Hamnet, Katherine

[3]     From:   Richard J. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 11 May 1998 13:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0445  Edmund Shakespeare, Hamnet, Katherine

[4]     From:   Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 May 1998 00:22:06 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0445  Edmund Shakespeare, Hamnet, Katherine

[5]     From:   David J. Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 11 May 1998 20:12:28 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0445  Edmund Shakespeare, Hamnet, Katherine


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 11 May 1998 13:24:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Edmund, Hamlet, etc.

Dear Roy Flannagan,

Your point about Edmund Shakespeare and Edmund in *King Lear* is very
acute. It may well be that Edmund, Gloucester's bastard son, is
patterned on Edmund Shakespeare-intuitively, the idea is appealing. But,
of course, there is the problem of proof, and therein lies the rub.  As
for Hamlet and Hamlet, both are variants of the same name, and Hamnet
Shake-speare was probably named after Hamnet Sadler, who was
Shakespeare's neighbor. Apparently, Shakespeare and Hamnet and Judith
Sadler (his wife) were life-long friends and very close.  As you may
know, in *Ulysses,* Stephen Daedalus concocts the theory that Hamlet is
really Hamnet (Shakespeare's only son, who died in 1597 (?), maybe 1596,
I forget exactly, but rest assured someone will know. If so, then
*Hamlet* reverses the story of Hamnet. In the former, a dead father
calls out to his son; in real life, the opposite would have been true.
What to make of it? You tell me. One theory would be that in carrying
out the Ghost's impossible commands, Hamlet becomes the hero that
Shakespeare always hoped his son would be. That sounds a bit
sentimental, but then, we are all sentimental about our own children,
aren't we?

As for Kate, my theory is that Shakespeare had a vision of the future in
which he met Katherine Hepburn, immediately feel in love with her, and
used her name from that moment on.

--Ed Taft

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 11 May 1998 13:28:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 9.0445  Edmund Shakespeare, Hamnet, Katherine
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0445  Edmund Shakespeare, Hamnet, Katherine

I'm curious to know what Mr. Flannagan would make of the character
William in AS YOU LIKE IT. Surely if this character is intended to
resemble the playwright, we're in deep trouble-unless, of course, we're
anti-Stratfordians. The connections Mr. Flannagan suggests may or may
not exist; if they do exist, however, they may well be ironic.

Fran Teague
New e-mail address: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard J. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 11 May 1998 13:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 9.0445  Edmund Shakespeare, Hamnet, Katherine
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0445  Edmund Shakespeare, Hamnet, Katherine

The name of Shakespeare of Stratford's son and daughter, Hamnet and
Judith, were taken from friends of his, Hamnet and Judith Sadler, of
Stratford.

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 May 1998 00:22:06 -0400
Subject: 9.0445  Edmund Shakespeare, Hamnet, Katherine
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0445  Edmund Shakespeare, Hamnet, Katherine

Edmund was sixteen years younger than William. What finally occurred to
me to wonder was if he might have been brought to London quite young, to
apprentice in his brother's company, playing girl's parts.

For some time I've believed that the avuncular Sonnet One was written to
someone named Edmund ("pity the world, or else this glutton be"
edo=glutton; mundi=world), but I didn't see how the dates could fit with
this boy brother.

[5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David J. Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 11 May 1998 20:12:28 +0100
Subject: 9.0445  Edmund Shakespeare, Hamnet, Katherine
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0445  Edmund Shakespeare, Hamnet, Katherine

Roy Flannagan wrote:

>Is it just me, or could there be something going on between Hamnet and
>Hamlet?  Where did Shakespeare get the name Hamnet, anyway?

Shakespeare's twins Hamnet and Judith were named after Hamnet and Judith
Sadler, a married couple in Stratford who were his friends and
neighbors.  Interestingly, Hamnet Sadler was very often referred to as
"Hamlet" by those who knew him, including Shakespeare (in his will),
Abraham Sturley (in a 1597 letter), his brother-in-law John Smith (in
his 1601 will), his cousin Helen Scudamore (in her 1606 will), and the
Stratford town fathers (in a 1595 return of maltsters).  (See Mark
Eccles' *Shakespeare in Warwickshire*, p.126.

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

CyberShakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0455  Monday, 11 May 1998.

From:           Michael Mullin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 11 May 1998 14:47:14 +1000
Subject:        CyberShakespeare

Dear Colleagues:

The electronic mock-up for CyberShakespeare has been completed and may
be viewed at <http://cybershakespeare.ola.edu.au>, where you will find
an account of the project and a site tour. Please sign the guestbook and
give us the benefit of your suggestions.

Thank you.

Michael Mullin

Michael Mullin, President
Motley Pty Ltd
Learning Environments on the Web
Suite 5, Kensington House
373 Toorak Road
South Yarra 3141 VIC Professor of English in absentia
AUSTRALIA University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
+613 9827 1593

Position Announcement: ROYAL HOLLOWAY

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0456  Monday, 11 May 1998.

From:           Kiernan Ryan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 11 May 1998 10:48:25 +0100
Subject:        JOB ADVERT

ROYAL HOLLOWAY
University of London

Lecturer in Shakespeare and Renaissance Literature

The Department of English at Royal Holloway invites applications for a
Lectureship in Shakespeare and Renaissance Literature from 1 September
1998.

The person appointed will contribute to the teaching and administration
of courses at undergraduate and postgraduate level, participate in the
general administrative work of the Department, and contribute to the
Department's research and publications.

Candidates should have a special interest in Shakespeare, but should
also be able to teach a broad range of literature in the Renaissance
period.

The ideal candidate will be some way into her/his career, with a proven
record in scholarship and publication. The appointment will be on the
Lecturer A scale, according to experience (


Qs: Bottom; Autolycus; Bedford Texts

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0454  Monday, 11 May 1998.

[1]     From:   Ed Friedlander <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 8 May 1998 11:36:51 CST
        Subj:   Bottom

[2]     From:   Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 8 May 1998 19:45:24 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Autolycus

[3]     From:   Nicholas R Moschovakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 8 May 1998 18:19:52 -0600
        Subj:   Bedford Texts & Contexts


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Friedlander <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 8 May 1998 11:36:51 CST
Subject:        Bottom

I have been told that Bottom satirizes Puritans and that Puritanism was
especially popular among weavers.

I'll probably have to decide for myself about the first.  Is there any
evidence that Shakespeare's audience would have recognized weavers as
puritans?

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 8 May 1998 19:45:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Autolycus

Can someone direct me to a source for the etymology of the name
"Autolycus" (Winter's Tale)?  I know it is the name of the son of Hermes
and ancestor of Odysseus.  I am interested in the possible association
with "lycos" -  wolf and "auto" - self (?).

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Nicholas R Moschovakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 8 May 1998 18:19:52 -0600
Subject:        Bedford Texts & Contexts

An appeal for advice from the academics out there:

I'm looking over the Bedford paperback *Shrew* (ed. Dolan) in the "Texts
& Contexts" series for next semester, and am wondering whether any on
the list have had success (or not) assigning this text to college
students, specifically in lower-division courses.

It's so heavy with social history that I'm somewhat apprehensive about
using it with first-years. Is it possible to give vocabulary, verse, and
theatrical matters the amount of attention which beginning readers of
Shakespeare are likely to require, while at the same time juggling
non-Shakespearean 16th-century documents and discussing the finer points
of the Homilies and state authority in relation to cultural practice? (I
would have about three weeks to teach the play, at the end of which the
Alabama Shakespeare Festival is performing the play on campus.)

Bedford apparently has a *Macbeth* in the same series; comments on this
text (which I haven't seen - they forgot to send me one) would be
welcome as well.

Thanks.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.