1999

Re: _The Partial Law_

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0714  Thursday, 22 April 1999.

From:           Helen Ostovich <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 21 Apr 1999 15:19:43 -0400
Subject: 10.0678 and _The Partial Law_
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0678 and _The Partial Law_

Thanks to  Meg Powers Livingston <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>, who asked (on
Saturday, 17 Apr 1999) questions on The Partial Law and Much Ado:   she
asked:

>Does anyone know if the anonymous play The Partial Lawe (c. 1616 or so)
>is available in any printed edition?  It's a manuscript play owned by
>the Folger and is supposed to be a re-working of Much Ado.  Has the
>Malone Society printed it?

I expect to be working on a new edition of that play with Len Ferry,
currently completely his doctoral studies under my supervision at
McMaster.  He "discovered" the play in the course of investigating
tragicomedies of the period related to his dissertation, and I'll let
him speak for himself next (he's not a member of SHAKSPER).  But we have
already received expressions of interest for internet publication at
least, and will also investigate paper publication in due course.

The Partial Law is  a re-working of the sources that Shakespeare used in
writing _Much Ado About Nothing_.  It was edited early in this century
by Bertram Dobell in a limited run of only 200 copies.  No apparatus is
provided with the edition, and the editor admits to having modernized
puntuation freely.  Dobell thought Massinger a possible candidate for
authorship, but there is little proof given for the attribution beyond
the similarity of heroine to Massinger's female characters.  And he
suggests dates between 1615 and 1630.  In its use of sources the play
should have considerable interests for Shakespeareans, by allowing them
the opportunity to compare Shakespeare's selection and use not only to
what we can imagine him having done but with the actual practice of a
contemporary.  It could also shed light on Shakespeare's return to the
"traduced lady" theme in the romances.  In fact, in his introduction,
Dobell notes an "intentional imitation" of Pericles in the play.  It is
also interesting both for its representation of female characters and
insofar as it represents a time in the history of the drama that
Fletcher and others undertook to re-write some of the works of
Shakespeare.  For these reasons I am currently working on a critical
edition of the play.

Leonard Ferry, McMaster University.


Helen Ostovich
Editor, EARLY THEATRE / Dept of English CNH-321
McMaster University

Re: Bard Games

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0713  Thursday, 22 April 1999.

From:           Nancy Charlton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 21 Apr 1999 11:57:32 -0700
Subject: 10.06627 Q: Bard Games
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.06627 Q: Bard Games

Pete McCluskey inquired about Shakespeare board games.  Knute Skinner of
Western Washington University (or at least the last I knew) invented a
Hamlet game which so far as I know was enjoyed only by his family and
friends and never published.

Nancy Charlton
Portland OR

Shakespeare Numbers

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0711  Thursday, 22 April 1999.

From:           Ed Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 21 Apr 1999 11:30:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Shakespeare Numbers

It seems to me that Peter Holland is right-there's a lot more than a few
hundred active researchers working on Shakespeare. For example, the
latest issue of "The World Shakespeare Bibliography," for 1997, contains
4780 items and an Index of Names (not all authors) that goes on for 57
pages, with over 200 names per page!

--Ed Taft

Re: Keanu Does Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0712  Thursday, 22 April 1999.

From:           Janet Maclellan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 21 Apr 1999 13:05:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Keanu Does Shakespeare
Comment:        SHK 10.0704 Re: Keanu Does Shakespeare

Mike Jensen wrote: "I don't take your point about [Keanu Reeves's]
performance in Branagh's film."

How very odd. I thought I had carefully avoided making one.

Since my post about the stylization of Don John's prose has now twice
been interpreted as a defense of Reeves's delivery in Branagh's Much
Ado, perhaps I should make it clear that I too was unhappy with his
performance.  In deference to the "If you can't say anything nice..."
principle, I aimed to restrict my remarks to DJ's language itself,
eschewing any comment on Reeves's delivery of it.

I fully agree with Mike Jensen that a skilled actor should be capable of
rising to the challenge posed by difficult text. Branagh's tendency, as
a director, to dodge this challenge when casting his clowns has been
discussed by others on SHAKSPER. He seems to have executed a similar
dodge when casting Reeves as Don John-which is why I called his choice
"oddly appropriate." (It was a wee joke, you see.)

My apologies to the list at large for further drawing out this thread.
Why is it that corrections and clarifications-arguably the life and soul
of spoken conversation-seem so insufferably tedious when translated into
the medium of the listserv?

Cordially,
Janet MacLellan
University of Toronto
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: Titus Andronicus

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0710  Thursday, 22 April 1999.

[1]     From:   Helen Ostovich <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 21 Apr 1999 09:12:02 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0698 Re: Titus Andronicus

[2]     From:   Hugh Howard Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 21 Apr 1999 13:46:46 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0707 Re: Titus Andronicus


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Helen Ostovich <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 21 Apr 1999 09:12:02 -0400
Subject: 10.0698 Re: Titus Andronicus
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0698 Re: Titus Andronicus

Re _Titus_ cast and crew:

>Julie Taymor's production, filmed mostly in Rome, with Anthony Hopkins
>as Titus and Jessica Lange as (I think) Lavinia, is probably not a
>space-opera, though Taymor is best known for her costumes for the stage
>production of The Lion King.

This is from the website:

Titus
Genre: Historical/Drama.
Studio: Unknown.
Production Company: Overseas Filmgroup/Pacifica.

Project Phase: In the Can.

Who's In It: Anthony Hopkins (Titus Andronicus); Jessica Lange (Tamora);
Laura Fraser (Lavinia);; Angus MacFayden; Alan Cumming (Saturninus);
Matthew Rhys (Demetrius); Harry J. Lennix (Aaron); Colm Feore; Jonathan
Rhys-Meyers (Chiron).

Who's Making It: Julie Taymor (Director, Screenwriter); Paul G. Allen,
Jody Patton, Colleen Hunt (Producers); Brad Moseley (Executive
Producer); Theo Angell (Director of Photography); Milena Canonero
(Costume Designer); Elliot Goldenthal (Musical Score); based on the play
by William Shakespeare.

Helen
Editor, EARLY THEATRE / Dept of English CNH-321
McMaster University

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hugh Howard Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 21 Apr 1999 13:46:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 10.0707 Re: Titus Andronicus
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0707 Re: Titus Andronicus

On Wednesday, 21 Apr 1999, Robin Hamilton wrote:

>>P.S.: Sorry, I meant to ask what a space-opera is?

>Originally opera (obviously), then "horse opera" (dismissive reference
>to cowboy stories-usually filmed?), then enters SF (in contrast to
>"hard" science fiction-Hal Clements and Arthur C. Clarke) -- E.E. ("Doc)
>Smith, and on a higher level, Van Vogt.  Shifts from there to filmed
>SF-Star Wars as space opera as opposed to e.g. 2001.

>Dunno whether THE FORBIDDEN PLANET would count as a space opera version
>of THE TEMPEST  or not ...

Given your definition, then, no, -Forbidden Planet- is not a space opera
version.

Hugh Davis

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.