1999

Queries

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0626  Tuesday, 6 April 1999.

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 05 Apr 1999 16:31:39 +0000
        Subj:   Citing Quartos

[2]     From:   Barrett Fisher <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 5 Apr 1999 14:34:52 -0500
        Subj:   Origins of "Romance"

[3]     From:   Judith Craig <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 5 Apr 1999 21:00:42 -0500
        Subj:   My Own Private Idaho


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 05 Apr 1999 16:31:39 +0000
Subject:        Citing Quartos

Hi,

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.  The Clarendon facsimile uses line numbers that
refer to the Globe edition of 1893, which, again, can make for strange
citations.  Does anyone know of a citation system for the first quarto
which is proper to the quarto itself?

If not, I'll just go ahead with making references using both the
Clarendon and the Internet Shakespeare Editions methods together.  Can
anyone suggest a better way to cite this text?

Cheers,
Se


Responses to On-going Threads

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0625  Tuesday, 6 April 1999.

[1]     From:   Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 5 Apr 1999 14:15:51 EDT
        Subj:   Re: THINKING, Feeling and Meaning, and Writing

[2]     From:   Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 5 Apr 1999 15:18:30 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0608 Re: Limes; Hedge-Priest; Martext

[3]     From:   Carl Fortunato <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 5 Apr 1999 19:48:54 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0615 Re: Assorted Responses

[4]     From:   Karen Peterson-Kranz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:49:37 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0614 Re: Help with Assessment

[5]     From:   Clinton Atchley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 5 Apr 1999 16:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0612 Re: Polonius/Kate, Hamlet as Sociopath

[6]     From:   Andy White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 5 Apr 1999 20:04:39 -0400
        Subj:   Freud's Freudian Slip


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 5 Apr 1999 14:15:51 EDT
Subject:        Re: THINKING, Feeling and Meaning, and Writing

>Of course Shakespeare incorporated bits and pieces of his life into his
>plays. The important point is that it is *impossible to reconstruct a
>narrative of the author's life from those bits and pieces*.

Of course indeed, Jim Carroll. Milton was a sinner, but he had never
been cast out of Eden; blind, but never "eyeless in Gaza at the mill
with slaves"; a devout Christian, but never flown to the top of the
pinnacle by Satan and dared to jump off (nor had he fallen nine times
the space that measures night and day from heaven to hell, or awakened
on the buring lake).  Hawthorne worked in a customs house, but he never
impregnated a Salem goodwife, then refused to acknowledge his paternity,
or fallen in love with Rappacini's daughter, or killed his own wife
doing surgery on her birthmark.  Poe was never buried alive (except by
opium), nor charged with or convicted of murdering someone, and burying
the victim's heart under the floorboards; Whitman was never a little
bird deprived of his beloved mate. The examples to the contrary of the
biographical fallacy are endless.  If Gary Larsen had experienced only a
tenth of the things he writes about in The Far Side, he would be living
in a strange world, indeed (and probably in a strait jacket) . . . and
let's not even think about Stephen King, or any of the other spinners of
tales of madness and mayhem that abound even in our own century, let
alone the writers of fantasy and science fiction. (Spenser didn't have
to be Guyon to understand the downside of temperance gone obsessive, and
Dante didn't have to experience the Rose to conceptualize it.)  Does a
clergyman have to be married to understand marriage?

We seem to live under some sort of fantasy that great writers lock
themselves up in their garrets cloistered away from the real world, as
though they are not people like you and me, living normal lives in
between the words that make them famous.  I was reminded of this
recently when, in the new British Library, I saw some of John Lennon's
drafts for what became legendary lyrics.  One is written on the back of
what is clearly one of Julian's birthday cards; another, on normal
8-1/2x11 paper, has been scribbled over in some very childish loops and
whorls: one can just imagine his little son grabbing John's pregnant pen
as it was poised in the act of composition, and crowing "Daddy! me
write, too!"

Ultimately, I think that what makes any kind of great writing great
(even Gary Larsen's cartoons) is that it expresses a truth we can all
see in a way we could not have (or did not, if we could have) conveyed
it.  There is an analogue to this, it seems to me, in my students'
reaction to my classroom analysis of a piece of literature: "oh, of
course, once you explain it, it becomes so obvious-but I didn't see that
in it when I read it for myself."  One picture of a farmer leaving the
henhouse with a dozen eggs in a basket as the rooster leaves the
farmhouse with a baby under his wing speaks volumes about human
arrogance and man's injustice to animals: does Larsen have to have been
a chicken to conceive of this?  Did Shari Lewis have to be a ewe to be a
Lambchop?

Peace be to all of you.  I am not denigrating anyone's argument, merely
suggesting that we've beaten this one to death long enough.  Can we move
on to something else?

Best to all,
Carol Barton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 5 Apr 1999 15:18:30 EDT
Subject: 10.0608 Re: Limes; Hedge-Priest; Martext
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0608 Re: Limes; Hedge-Priest; Martext

>I have always assumed that the name "Martext" was a pejorative reference
>to Puritans who actually read and interpreted the Bible for themselves
>(marring the text).  That would seem to reinforce the Marprelate
>connection.

Scott, I think this may be backwards.  The Marprelate Tracts lampooned
the bishopric (prelates).  It would have been the Roman Catholic clergy
that, in Martin and Martin Jr.'s view (as in Martin Luther's before
them), "marred" the text (i.e., by ostensibly investing the Bible with
things it didn't contain, such as purgatory and indulgences and the
prohibition against eating meat on Fridays).  Then too, under Protestant
pressure for reform, 34 and 35 Henry VIII ("described as an Act for the
Advancement of True Religion") had enjoined anyone not appointed by king
or ordinary from public reading in church, and declared that, as a
result of the plethora of unorthodox interpretations then prevailing,
only noblemen and gentlemen might read the Bible to their families at
home, substantial merchants and gentlewomen to themselves, and the lower
classes not at all (J.D. Mackie, _The Earlier Tudors_, 429).  Mackie
also points out that, out of 311 clergymen polled at the time, only 50
could say how many Commandments there were, recite the Nicene Creed and
the Lord's Prayer, and identify the scriptural authority on which these
things were founded correctly . . . some couldn't even identify the
author of the Lord's Prayer (519-20)!  Martext is so sketchily drawn in
AYLI that it's hard to ascribe a profound meaning one way or the other
(pro or con) to Shakespeare's glance at Marprelate; but the resonance
seems almost irrefutable.

Best,
Carol Barton

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carl Fortunato <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 5 Apr 1999 19:48:54 EDT
Subject: 10.0615 Re: Assorted Responses
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0615 Re: Assorted Responses

>In Twelfth Night, Viola says that she will pose as a eunuch and be a
>messenger from Orsino to Olivia's court.  My question is this: Does
>Olivia see Viola/Caesario as a eunuch, or just as a handsome young boy?
>If the former is so, why does Olivia fall for him/her so quickly.
>What's the attraction?  It obviously can't be sexual.

I think that this discrepancy is one of the reasons that some think
Shakespeare changed the plot of the play while writing.  You will also
note that Olivia says (in the same speech) that she "can sing, and speak
to him in many sorts of music," but when Orsino requests a song of her
later (II.iv), Curio says, "He is not here, so please your lordship, who
should sing it," meaning Feste.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Peterson-Kranz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:49:37 +1000
Subject: 10.0614 Re: Help with Assessment
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0614 Re: Help with Assessment

I wanted to express appreciation for Kezia Vanmeter Sproat's posting on
assessment.  Among other things Kezia wrote:

>One point perhaps
>worth the consideration of this forum, however, is the relation between
>what ONU's innocent Shakespearean has been asked to do and the value
>budgetary decision-makers assign to what English professors do (or did
>when I was in school and teaching). If they allow themselves to be
>sucked into edutechnobabble "assessment" (note 3 syllables meaning
>"test," proliferating latinate polysyllabics standing in for knowledge,
>allowing all that fat and time for the testers' convenience, with the
>totally brazen goal of cutting time for responding face-to-face or even
>pencil-to-pencil with living human students), they devalue their own
>work, and may be blamed, in part, when university budgets leave them a
>very short end of the stick.

I second that, from hard experience.  I (for the moment) work in one of
those institutions where English is being gutted with a very dull
administrative knife.  We, too, have our talk (and talk and talk) about
assessment and outcomes and the like, while our students seem to suffer
the consequences.  Over the past three years 14 tenure-track English
department people have left or retired and have not been replaced, as
English (especially the literature part of the department) is seen as
something intangible, unmeasurable, and altogether less "useful" and
"cost effective" than, say, business administration.  One of our two
Shakespeareans left a year ago and was not replaced, and now the other
one (me!) is being reduced to part-time status come fall.

And the university and the community we serve continue to bewail the
fact that the students can't read or write, and have instituted
"introduction to college" required courses which ostensibly will solve
that problem (taught by administrators, staffers from the Student Life
office and members of the career counseling corps).  I continue to teach
developmental writing and freshman composition, into which I insert as
much literature as possible, since I vaguely recall that I learned to
read and write by (gasp!) actually reading and writing.  Shakespeare was
an important part of that reading for me, and probably for everyone else
on this list.  We do need to be aware, however, that we are going
against the grain of current administrative thought (oxymoron?) in
advocating such anachronisms as literature, Shakespeare, and related
matters.

Forgive my bitterness, and the rant (Hardy, you have the patience of a
saint...thank you, and congratulations!)

Karen Peterson-Kranz
(marginally of the)Department of English and Applied Linguistics
University of Guam

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clinton Atchley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 5 Apr 1999 16:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 10.0612 Re: Polonius/Kate, Hamlet as Sociopath
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0612 Re: Polonius/Kate, Hamlet as Sociopath

>>Actually, I tend to see these two scenes differently; Hamlet imposes on
>>Polonius because court etiquette requires Polonius agree with anything
>>his betters say-even if his betters are clearly nuts.
>
>That's not entirely true, Andy: think of the Lear Fool, and Kent.
>Polonius has been trying to "sound" Hamlet the same way Rosencrantz and
>Guildenstern have-and I think Hamlet's response is more a contemptuous,
>"what do you take me for-an idiot that an old fool like you can
>entrap?!" than it is a powerplay.

Actually, I think Hamlet's response is dictated by affection for
Polonius.  Not just here but throughout the play Hamlet has shown a
certain affection for Polonius, think of his admonition to the players
not to abuse him.  He know Polonius doesn't get what's going on in re
his madness, and he just enjoys playing mind games with someone who
thinks he's got it all figured out. He has known Polonius all of his
(Hamlet's) life and know what his reaction is going to be to all of the
games he plays.  This is Hamlet in his more lucid and generous moments.

>>In the same vein, Petruchio's sun/moon bit with Kate seems to be his
>>attempt to get her to treat him like royalty, to agree with everything
>>he says, for no other reason than that he said it.
>
>Here, I think it's exactly the opposite: Petruchio is insisting that
>Kate capitulate to his superiority as her husband, accept the fact that,
>whether she likes it or not, society says he is her better. I don't want
>to reopen this thread of worms again, so I will try to say this as
>non-controversially as possible: Kate doesn't agree with him to humor
>him (at least I don't think so), but is ironic in her answers,
>acknowledging his legal right to assert what the Wyf of Bath called the
>"maisterie" over her, and utterly rejecting his actual ability to so
>do.  As Satan in PL observes, "who overcomes by force hath overcome but
>half his foe": Petruchio ultimately "tames" Kate, to the extent that he
>does, by force of love, and categorically not by force of law.

Here again, I think mind games are involved.  Petruchio has beaten Kate
down through starvation and threat of not going to the party.  She
learns the game and goes at it with gusto, even embellishing Petruchio's
original statements.  She learns what is expected and how to get ahead
within this context.

>>Kate finally agrees
>>to this, but not before turning the tables on her hubby, as I recall...
>>it seems to me that Polonius isn't the crazy one, he's sane but stuck in
>>an absurd situation.  Ditto, even more so, for Kate.

Polonius is stuck in what HE perceives as an absurd situation and
responds accordingly.  Kate actually understands the dynamics of what
Petruchio is attempting and buys into the situation as a means of
getting what she wants, i.e. attending Bianca's wedding reception.

Clinton Atchley
University of Washington
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Andy White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 5 Apr 1999 20:04:39 -0400
Subject:        Freud's Freudian Slip

Another point, which comes to mind for me every time I have to watch
Hamlet mount his mum in her 'closet' (since when do closets
automatically include beds?): Freud has a disturbing tendency to locate
dysfunction in the minds of children, never the parents or other adults
who may have caused the problem in the first place.  In Hamlet's case,
it is his mother who has disgraced herself by committing adultery and
then incest with her husband's brother.  That Hamlet had a legitimate
complaint against his mother escaped Dr.'s Freud and Jones, as well as
generations of psychoanalysts since.

For those who are partial to psychoanalysis, let me stress that my
objections are very specific here, and should not be construed as a
general attack on a worthy field of endeavor; I simply find Freud to be
a mixed bag, and this is the main reason why.

Andy White
Arlington, VA

Re: HBO Animated Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0622  Tuesday, 6 April 1999.

[1]     From:   Ray Lischner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 05 Apr 1999 21:51:39 GMT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0617 Assorted Questions

[2]     From:   Richard A Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 05 Apr 1999 18:38:05 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0617 Animated Shakespeare

[3]     From:   Judy Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 5 Apr 1999 19:32:56 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   HBO Animated Shakespeare

[4]     From:   Skip Nicholson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 5 Apr 1999 22:51:30 -0700
        Subj:   RE: SHK 10.0617 Assorted Questions

[5]     From:   Stanley Wells <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 6 Apr 1999 11:40:29 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0617 Assorted Questions


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ray Lischner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 05 Apr 1999 21:51:39 GMT
Subject: 10.0617 Assorted Questions
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0617 Assorted Questions

On Monday, 5 Apr 1999 13:34:15 -0400, Larry Weiss wrote:

>I discovered a hitherto unknown resource while surfing the channel guide
>one evening.  There is a series of animated Shakespeare plays being
>broadcast on HBO at unwholesome times, like 6 AM.  I set my VCR to
>record a couple (notice, I am not so dedicated as to arise at that hour)
>and have now viewed two of them - RIII and AYLI.  As the RIII was rerun
>when I next set the machine to record the program, it may be that there
>is nothing else yet.
>
>Does anyone have any other information?

Shakespeare: The Animated Tales are also available on video tape. Amazon
lists Hamlet, Macbeth, Tempest, R&J, and Twelfth Night. Some use
Claymation, and others traditional animation. The animation is Russian,
but the voices are English-often well-known actors and actresses.

In order to condense a play to only 30 minutes, much dialog is replaced
by voice over and narration, but they try to keep the spirit of the play
intact, and they do retain some of the dialog.

Ray Lischner  (http://www.bardware.com)
co-author (with John Doyle) of Shakespeare for Dummies

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard A Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 05 Apr 1999 18:38:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 10.0617 Animated Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0617 Animated Shakespeare

The series is widely available.  It's probably available at Amazon.com.
Laurie Osborne has an excellent essay on the series in Shakespeare, the
Movie.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judy Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 5 Apr 1999 19:32:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        HBO Animated Shakespeare

I'm not sure how many were in the series, but I have (besides the two
mentioned) Shrew, Dream, and Othello.  When they first appeared, it was
possible to buy accompanying texts.  The book I have for Dream (New
York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993) is abridged by Leon Garfield and
illustrated by Elena Prorokova (based on the images in the animated
short).  The Dream animation was done in Moscow.  The series,
Shakespeare: The Animated Tales, was 'a multinational venture conceived
by S4C, Channel 4 Wales.  Produced in Russia, Wales, and England, the
series has been financed by S4C, the BBC, and HIT Communications (UK),
Christmas films and Soyuzmultfilm (Russia), Home Box Office (USA), and
Fujisankei (Japan)'.

I think the Dream animation is in many ways remarkably effective; some
of the others appealed to me less, but it is also true that I have given
them less attention.  The series is commendable.  (Our grandchildren
enjoyed them.)

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

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Skip Nicholson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 5 Apr 1999 22:51:30 -0700
Subject: 10.0617 Assorted Questions
Comment:        RE: SHK 10.0617 Assorted Questions

>It appears from the credits that the creators are Asian, but English
>authorities, notably Stanley Wells, are listed as advisors.

The series is evidently a new set in the "Shakespeare: The Annotated
Tales" cycle HBO started several years ago. The first round included
Hamlet, Midsummer, Romeo, The Tempest, 12th Night, and Macbeth. The
styles varied widely. Although all are animated, the 12th Night has the
look of pastel marionettes, the Hamlet has a sinister comic book look,
and the Midsummer is in something like a Yellow Submarine style. The
original set is from the unlikely marriage of Mosfilm in Russia and
BBC-Wales. The newer ones may, indeed, be Asian since much animation
work has migrated to Korea, where artistic labor is cheaper. Sigh.

They're wonderful in the classroom, as introductions to a play or as a
review. There's time to watch the whole story and to talk about it in a
50-minute class. The story narration is newly written, but when the
characters speak, it's from the text. The first set came out with
accompanying large-format paperback books.

The HBO web site lists Othello and Taming of the Shrew as the April
movies-Othello shows on 8 and 24 April at 6:30 a.m. and 11 and 30 April
at 6. Shrew is on 11, 21, 24, and 29 April, all at 6:30. All the times
are A.M. and Eastern. HBO "follows the time zones," so they'll be on at
9 and 9:30 PDT.

HBO's web site has the schedule at:
http://www.hbo.com/schedule/bin/supersched2.cgi?target=_top&HBO=1&HBO=1&GENR
ES=ALL&request=sched&month=4&day=6&VB=D&OP=T&SB=C&x=11&y=8

Thanks much for the good news that there are more in this entertaining
and useful series. Now, if we can get them to reshow the As You Like It
and Ricky 3...

Cheers,
Skip Nicholson
South Pasadena (CA) HS

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stanley Wells <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 6 Apr 1999 11:40:29 +0000
Subject: 10.0617 Assorted Questions
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0617 Assorted Questions

The Animated Tales were made by the Welsh television company CS4 in
collaboration with English and Russian animators. The scripts, by the
distinguished writer of books for children and young people Leon
Garfield (now dead), use Shakespeare's words almost entirely (there's a
little narration in one or two of the films) and are I believe extremely
skillfully and sensitively done. As Literary Adviser I vetted the
scripts and helped in other ways so far as I could. The films were made
in Moscow, and along with other members of the team I visited the
studios there on two occasions. Three techniques were used: cel (i. e.
celluloid), puppets, and a rare technique, oil painting on glass, by
which a painting is made and then infinitesimally slowly modified with
the fingers to give the illusion of movement. The cel films required
around thirty thousand individual paintings for each film; we saw teams
of Russian ladies painting them in disused Moscow churches. The puppets
were around ten inches high, and had to have their limbs etc adjusted by
tiny degrees; there was more than one puppet for some characters. The
island set for The Tempest was a table top just a few feet in diameter.
I was told that, using this method, it was possible to make about 9
seconds of film per day. Sound recordings were made in England by
distinguished British actors including e. g. Brian Cox as Macbeth. The
first series consisted of six films: Romeo and Juliet, A Midsummer
Night's Dream, and Macbeth (all cel, MND and Macbeth particularly
imaginatively animated, in very different ways), Hamlet (oil on glass -
very beautiful), and The Tempest and Twelfth Night (puppets, both
charmingly done. The Malvolio displays better comic timing than many
live actors I have seen in the role). This series was released in 1992.
It was followed by a second series of As You Like It, Julius Caesar,
Othello, The Taming of the Shrew, The Winter's Tale, and Richard 111.
Some, at least, of the films were also released in translation. Both
series were shown on television in Britain and the USA and released on
video. There is also an attractive series of accompanying books,
designed partly for educational use, published by Heinemann Education.
The manager of the Shakespeare Centre Bookshop tells me that the second
series of videos only is available at present. The tales have been
widely used in British primary schools, and have I think been very
valuable as an introduction to Shakespeare for the very young, but the
artistic quality of the films is so high that they can be enjoyed by
even sophisticated Shakespearians.

(I have no continuing financial interest in the project!)

Stanley Wells
The Shakespeare Centre
Henley Street

Re: Elizabeth

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0624  Tuesday, 6 April 1999.

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 05 Apr 1999 13:47:24 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0607 Re: Elizabeth

[2]     From:   Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 05 Apr 1999 14:14:10 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0607 Re: Elizabeth


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 05 Apr 1999 13:47:24 +0000
Subject: 10.0607 Re: Elizabeth
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0607 Re: Elizabeth

Karen writes:

>Many feminists have pointed out
>that men can discount any display of female anger by labeling it
>"hysteria," and then doubly discount the woman by asserting that the
>cure for her "hysteria" is sex with a male.

I just wanted to add to Karen's note that this precise cure is invoked
for the jailer's daughter in Two Noble Kinsmen:  "Please her appetite /
And do it home: it cures her ipso facto / The melancholy humor that
infects her" (5.2.35-37).  Clifford Leech, in his introduction to the
Signet, attributes this scene to Fletcher.  Nevertheless, it shows how
widely spread the explanation for female madness was.  It also, in my
humble opinion, sheds some light on Elizabeth's difficulty ruling in a
patriarchal age, if even her anger could be dismissed by the men around
her as sexual frustration.

Cheers,
Se


RE: Touchstone Films: "Gilligan's Tempest"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0621  Tuesday, 6 April 1999.

[1]     From:   Jerry Bangham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 5 Apr 1999 11:46:37 -0500
        Subj:   Latest From Hollywood

[2]     From:   Hugh Howard Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 5 Apr 1999 13:07:23 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0606 Latest From Hollywood

[3]     From:   Cameron Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 5 Apr 1999 11:57:47 -0700
        Subj:   RE: Touchstone Films: "Gilligan's Tempest"


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jerry Bangham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 5 Apr 1999 11:46:37 -0500
Subject:        Latest From Hollywood

>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.

I assume that this item originated on April 1.

Jerry Bangham                      This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
             http:/www.win.net/~kudzu

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hugh Howard Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 5 Apr 1999 13:07:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 10.0606 Latest From Hollywood
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0606 Latest From Hollywood

I can only assume this report is one of April Fools' Day tomfoolery, and
hope we escape this production.  We all know Ernest P. Worrell would be
better, in Ernest meets Prospero.

Hugh Davis

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Cameron Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 5 Apr 1999 11:57:47 -0700
Subject:        RE: Touchstone Films: "Gilligan'sTempest"

Ha Ha Ha...very very good!

Who are you?

Cameron

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.