Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: April ::
Responses
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0634  Wednesday, 7 April 1999.

[1]     From:   Ted Nellen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 6 Apr 1999 08:21:12 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0606 Latest From Hollywood

[2]     From:   Ron Dwelle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 6 Apr 1999 10:50:55 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0617 Assorted Questions (Pun/Quibble)

[3]     From:   Michael Best <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 6 Apr 1999 09:31:05 -0700
        Subj:   Through line numbers

[4]     From:   Michael D. Friedman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 06 Apr 1999 17:08:20 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0615 Re: Assorted Responses (Bible/Mac.)

[5]     From:   Clifford Stetner <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wed, 7 Apr 1999 03:34:33 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0581 Allegory

[6]     From:   Nick Moschovakis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 6 Apr 1999 11:41:00 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0626 Queries - Origins of "Romance"


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ted Nellen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 6 Apr 1999 08:21:12 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: 10.0606 Latest From Hollywood
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0606 Latest From Hollywood

>'Gilligan Meets The Bard?'
>
>by Felix Culpa, Entertainment Weekly
>
>Los Angeles-Joining the latest batch of Hollywood Shakespearean
>adaptations is the latest offering from Touchstone Films: "Gilligan's
>Tempest," starring Jim Carrey in the role of Gilligan/Caliban.
>
>The screenplay combines Shakespeare's timeless tale of castaways on an
>island off the coast of Bohemia with the beloved television sitcom
>"Gilligan's Island."

--gutted--

>"If you loved 'Shakespeare in Love,' you'll very likely want to see
>'Gilligan's Tempest' eight or nine times,' promises director George
>Lucas.  "And then buy the action figures, trading cards, breakfast
>cereals, and Cliffs Notes," he adds with a wink.
>
>Peter M. McCluskey 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 

This is a great film, already have the Hong Kong pirated version and
have seen it each night this last fortnight.

I love these extended Apr 1 jokes.

Ted Nellen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ron Dwelle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 6 Apr 1999 10:50:55 -0400
Subject: 10.0617 Assorted Questions (Pun/Quibble)
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0617 Assorted Questions (Pun/Quibble)

I assume you're talking Renaissance usage. I think a pun is a more
general term for a play on words. The Renaissance had an elaborate
subdivision of specific types of puns, such as paronomasia or syllepsis,
which Shakespeare probably would have studied in school. The division
into types would have varied, depending on the book referenced and the
schoolmaster's predilections. A quibble would ordinarily be thought of
as a pun with a specific purpose of evading the point at issue
(lawyerly) or of equivocating.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Best <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 6 Apr 1999 09:31:05 -0700
Subject:        Through line numbers

Sean Lawrence asks:

>Does anyone know of an edition of the Pied Bull quarto of King Lear
>which uses through-line numbering?  The Internet Shakespeare Edition
>uses TLN, but the Folio's, which is handy for cross-reference, but makes
>for some strange citations when the quarto includes lines that the folio
>does not or vice-versa.

You will be pleased to know that the Internet Shakespeare Editions of
quartos currently on line do actually include quarto through-line
numbers, though they are not currently displayed. You can find them in
the source code of the editions (most browsers allow you to save or
display the "raw" HTML coding). In the final versions of the editions it
should be possible for users to choose what kind of numbering (if any)
they want displayed; in any case, the information is embedded in the
texts already.

I would further comment that the only numbering scheme that is
understood across editions is the Folio-based TLN. Several editions
(including the ISE) adapt this to the quartos that add lines by using a
plus sign, so that you get numbers like "427+3 -- surely not too strange
as a citation?

Michael Best
Department of English, University of Victoria
Victoria B.C. V8W 3W1, Canada. (250) 598-9575
<
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
<http://www.engl.uvic.ca/Faculty/Best/>
Coordinating Editor, Internet Shakespeare Editions
<http://web.uvic.ca/shakespeare>

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael D. Friedman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 06 Apr 1999 17:08:20 -0400
Subject: 10.0615 Re: Assorted Responses (Bible/Mac.)
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0615 Re: Assorted Responses (Bible/Mac.)

Herb Coursen wrote an entire article on the subject of Macbeth as a
version of the biblical fall of man: "In Deepest Consequence: Macbeth"
in SQ 18 (1971): 375-88.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clifford Stetner <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wed, 7 Apr 1999 03:34:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 10.0581 Allegory
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0581 Allegory

I hope I am not backing up the track, but I wish to comment on my
original
reference to the allegory I perceive in The Merchant of Venice.  Its
most
blatant expression is in the three caskets trial.  Please forgive me for
not digging up old source material.  If anyone insists, I can probably
retrieve it.  Said material indicated to me (when I wrote this paper as
an undergraduate) that both the three caskets and the ring bond were
taken from folk tales which Shakespeare either combined himself, or
found together.  While one may argue against my explication of the
allegory underlying this comedy as expressive of the spiritual struggle
of the English Reformation, the three caskets folk tale is explicitly
allegorical.  Either Shakespeare includes it for its narrative and
dramatic value, or he uses it as a vehicle for allegory.  On its most
superficial metaphorical level, it simply expresses the value of a love
based on internal rather than external qualities (perhaps Portia isn't
that attractive), but my interpretation asserts that, in this play at
least, Shakespeare followed the four level scheme of medieval exegesis,
and that the traditional device of combining folk tales into coherent
narratives is here imbued with literal, allegorical, tropological, and
anagogical meanings.  It is significant, for example, that the other two
contestants for the prize are a Catholic and a Moslem.

Clifford Stetner
CUNY
York College
C.W. Post College

>My thanks to Brian Haylett for an intelligent response to my comments
>about the future of allegory in Shakespeare studies. Brian is certainly
>right to point out that all allegory is not the same. When, for example,
>the good and bad angels appear to Faustus, what do we have? Psychdrama?
>Allegory? Both? Probably both, don't you think? Which leads me to think
>that allegory must be subdivided into, say, psychological allegory,
>historical allegory, spiritual allegory, etc. But as I write this, I
>can't help thinking of Polonius: "pastorical-comical,
>historical-pastoral, tragical-historical,
>tragical-comical-historical-pastoral" (!) This sudden insight into how I
>sound makes me think that it is time to leave this issue and go to SAA,
>where, with luck, my affinities with Polonius will not be much noticed.
>
>--Ed Taft

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Nick Moschovakis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 6 Apr 1999 11:41:00 -0600
Subject: 10.0626 Queries - Origins of "Romance"
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0626 Queries - Origins of "Romance"

Barrett Fisher wrote:

>I know that in
>Coleridge's lecture of 17 December 1818 he calls [*The Tempest*] "a
>specimen of
>the romantic drama," and later in the lecture uses the term "romance"
>(though in context it is difficult to tell if this is synonymous with
>"The Tempest" or a generic label)....

and he asks,

>1. When was a definition of romance as a dramatic genre "codified"?
>2. When was this term applied to Shakespeare's plays?

The questions are answered in G. K. Hunter, *English Drama 1586-1642:
The Age of Shakespeare* (Oxford 1997), p. 501, n. 8:

"Edward Dowden, in his Shakespere (1876), seems to be the first person
to use the word 'romance' for this purpose [i.e. to designate a class of
Shakespearean plays]. He says that these plays 'have a grave beauty, a
sweet serenity which seems to render the name 'comedies'
inappropriate...Let us then name this group...'Romances" (p. 56). It is
worth noting that the word appears in Dowden as part of an effort to
construct an artistic chronology. My sometime pupil Chris Cobb has
pointed out a startingly prescient definition of romance in Hazlitt's
notes on Cymbeline in his The Characters of Shakespeare's Plays
(1817)...Hazlitt calls the play a 'dramatic romance'..."

Thus saith Hunter (and also Cobb, who is now one of my esteemed
colleagues at the University of the South).

- Nick Moschovakis
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.