1999

Re: Goofy Test Answers

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2270  Wednesday, 22 December 1999.

[1]     From:   Hilary Thimmesh <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Dec 1999 10:07:56 -0600
        Subj:   Goofy Answers

[2]     From:   Deborah Dale <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Dec 1999 09:12:53 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.2254 Re: Goofy Test Answers

[3]     From:   Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Dec 1999 13:15:29 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.2254 Re: Goofy Test Answers


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hilary Thimmesh <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Dec 1999 10:07:56 -0600
Subject:        Goofy Answers

In finals last week two of my students indicated that Gloucester was
blinded by Cromwell.  Probably history majors.  In the same exam another
student wrote that King Lear ends on a very sad note as the old king
enters carrying the dead body of his daughter Ophelia.  In this case I
suppose Ophelia is at least marginally preferable to Othello.

Hilary Thimmesh

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Deborah Dale <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Dec 1999 09:12:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 10.2254 Re: Goofy Test Answers
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.2254 Re: Goofy Test Answers

>I just e-mailed Richard Lederer, a former teacher of mine, the list of
>goofy test answers, knowing he would get a kick out of them.  Just for
>the record, the passage quoted above comes directly from his _Anguished
>English_ book.
>
>Tanya

What? O dear!  O harassing horror of horrors!  After all I have read
about plagiarism on this list, too (big giggle).

"I have not lost my mind--it's backed up on disk somewhere!" Unknown.

O bvious?
V esuvious, (yes, youvious),
            verbal begins with a V
E rupting
R eality bites

R eality RIGHTS
E gotistical
A fterthought: An apology, please?
C ourage or consumption?
T his is
I dealistic, so simplistic
O nly if you knew me, this
N arcissistic statistic

D. Dale

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Dec 1999 13:15:29 -0500
Subject: 10.2254 Re: Goofy Test Answers
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.2254 Re: Goofy Test Answers

This was an intentionally goofy answer (i.e., the rhetorical figure
known as a "joke"): many, many years ago, I took an exam in a
Shakespeare class immediately after seeing Barbara Streisand play Fanny
Brice in "Funny Girl." The exam included identifying the passage in
which Cassio says that Othello will "make love's quick pants in
Desdemona's arms and bring all Cyprus comfort." I ended my essay with
"Sam, you made the pants too long," which was one of Fanny Brice's
vaudeville hits.

Dana (Shilling)

Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2269  Wednesday, 22 December 1999.

[1]     From:   Skip Nicholson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Dec 1999 07:59:54 -0800
        Subj:   RE: SHK 10.2248 3rd Murderer in Macbeth

[2]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Dec 1999 10:01:53 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 10.2261 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth

[3]     From:   Judith Matthews Craig <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 Dec 1999 00:02:48 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.2261 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Skip Nicholson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Dec 1999 07:59:54 -0800
Subject: 10.2248 3rd Murderer in Macbeth
Comment:        RE: SHK 10.2248 3rd Murderer in Macbeth

A memorable Third Murderer (was it in Sarah Caldwell's strange Boston
production years ago?) was no other than "Witch 3," who in the murder
scene rescued a captured and clearly doomed Fleance... a fascinating
turn, but it did leave you wondering for the rest of the play what else
the witches were going to do to make sure their prophesies were
accurate.

Cheers,
Skip Nicholson

PS: Thanks to John Ramsay for remembering that it was the Stratford
Festival production, and not Sarah Caldwell's as I mistakenly posted,
that had the witch as the 3rd murder who rescues Fleance.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Dec 1999 10:01:53 -0800
Subject: Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth
Comment:        SHK 10.2261 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth

J. Kenneth Campbell wrote:

>In Harold C Goddard's essay "Macbeth as the Third Murderer" he presents
>some compelling arguments to support the idea of the title.  Briefly,
>his thesis is that the third murderer is meant to indicate to the
>audience Macbeth's ambition and thought: it is not Macbeth's body, but
>his mind and his will that the third murderer represents.  Goddard
>claims that Shakespeare conveys this idea in everything the third
>murderer says since all his words has something in it to remind us of
>Macbeth.  Definitely worth a read.

This was tried by the California Shakespeare Festival about 8 years
ago.  The third murderer was hooded.  Right before the stabbing, the
hood was pulled off, revealing Macbeth.  This made for compelling
theater until you asked the question, Why not fend off the killer
instead of unmasking him?

Then there is that cute little exchange between the First Murderer and
Macbeth in 3.4, where  Macbeth asks, "Is he dispatched?"

Wouldn't the third murderer know?

I believe those lines were cut at CSF.  If any one cares, I wrote about
the production in Shakespeare Bulletin, Vol. 11, #2, Spring 1993.  It
was critically acclaimed (the production, not my review), but I found
the concept wanting.

Cheers,
Mike Jensen

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judith Matthews Craig <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Dec 1999 00:02:48 -0600
Subject: 10.2261 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.2261 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth

Paul Swenson writes:

<Besides: everybody knows that Innogen and Mrs. <Bottom took turns being
<the real 3rd witch...

Which witch?

I have read from previous postings that Mrs. Bottom was like Gertrude
and Innogen, but these characters, unlike Mrs. Bottom, are actually in
plays.  And neither Innogen nor Gertrude are in 'Macbeth.'

Hence, I propose a new solution to the problem of "which witch:"
abolish Shakespeare and along with Fat Jack, you abolish all the
world.   Hence the problem of Einstein, outer space, God, and MR is
dealt with-Ockham's (not Occam's razor).

Britishly yours,
Judy Craig

Re: Canterbury on Playwriting

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2267  Wednesday, 22 December 1999.

From:           Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Dec 1999 10:54:40 -0500
Subject: 10.2227 Canterbury on Playwriting
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.2227 Canterbury on Playwriting

What might the "one consent...one purpose" be in the case of
Shakespeare's playwriting?

Clifford Stetner

>Re-reading "Henry V" (in the 1995 Arden edition, edited by T. W. Craik),
>I was struck by a passage in Act I, Scene 2, that (to me) could be taken
>as summing up Shakespeare's own attitude toward playwriting. The speaker
>is the Archbishop of Canterbury, lines 204-214:
>
>"... I this infer,
>That many things having full reference
>To one consent may work contrariously,
>As many arrows loosed several ways
>Come to one mark,
>As many several ways meet in one town,
>As many fresh streams meet in one salt sea,
>As many lines close in the dial's centre.
>So may a thousand actions once afoot
>End in one purpose and be all well borne
>Without defeat."
>
>Tad Davis

Re: Iago's Name

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2268  Wednesday, 22 December 1999.

[1]     From:   Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Dec 1999 10:56:58 -0500
        Subj:   King Iago

[2]     From:   Martin Mueller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Dec 1999 10:04:02 -0600
        Subj:   Iago and other names


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Dec 1999 10:56:58 -0500
Subject:        King Iago

It doesn't seem to me likely that the king or his spies would be likely
to see any reference to him in the character of Iago, beyond the name
itself.  Unlike the use of Richard II during the reign of Elizabeth as a
symbol for deposition of a corrupt monarchy, there is little to tie the
character of Iago, symbolically or otherwise to contemporary criticism
of the reign of James.

Perhaps James is the Othello and Shakespeare the Iago who drops his name
like a handkerchief where it is sure to be discovered?

>On a different topic, I have a question regarding Othello.  I once read
>that the name Iago was Spanish for James (presumably of Islamic
>origin).  Since most scholars place the play's date of composition as
>1604, the first year of James I reign, why would Shakespeare risk the
>offense of his sovereign and patron by naming his most evil character
>synonymously with the king?
>
>Vince Locke
>Eastern Michigan University

Clifford Stetner

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Mueller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Dec 1999 10:04:02 -0600
Subject:        Iago and other names

I cannot make much of a connection between Iago and King James. For one
thing, the names Iago and James don't sound much like one another (even
though they are related), and secondly, the name James is so common that
the intertextual hurdle is raised. But I'd like to ask some questions
about other names in Othello and Hamlet.  Why do Ophelia and Othello
have the names they have and why are they so much like each other?

Elena Fernandez del Valle  points out that Shakespeare took Desdemona's
name from Cinthio and that Disdemona is the only named character in the
novella. Outside of his histories, Shakespeare almost never kept the
names of his source characters, so the fact that he kept this one is a
significant choice. It testifies to minimal Greek: he knew that it meant
what we might today call Bad Karma and that its constituent parts are
'dus' and 'daimon'.  He almost certainly didn't know Heraklitus'
wonderful aphorism "ethos anthropoi daimon"  (


Re: Quartos and Folios

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2266  Wednesday, 22 December 1999.

From:           Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Dec 1999 10:53:32 -0500
Subject: 10.2247 Re: Quartos and Folios
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.2247 Re: Quartos and Folios

I am an outside observer in matters of textual scholarship, but I do try
to keep up with the latest science.

As analogies from contemporary science go, perhaps Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle has something to offer.  It demonstrates that
there are limits built into the physical universe beyond which
observation (and therefore human science) cannot go.  Specifically, it
implies that, if an object of study is changed by observation itself,
then its unobserved state can never be observed.

Objects of human agency such as written or printed texts are subject to
a similar principle of uncertainty.  No scientific method can apply,
because the possibility always exists that the text in question is an
intentional fabrication designed to stupefy literary critics.  Although
a similar condition might be argued for physical sciences, it is only
necessary to banish one malignant supreme intelligence from the physical
world.  The nature of literature lends itself too easily to forgery and
fakery to provide any sort of empirical material.

Textual scholars often seem to suppose a work to be a memorial
reconstruction because it isn't good enough to be Shakespeare.  I think
that it is useful to imagine that the first quarto of Hamlet is
Shakespeare's, and the second is a collaborative work up after years of
performance.  Perhaps it was Shakespeare the individual who was the
mediocrity, and the consortium who produced the great "finished" works
(n.b. this last is meant as a kind of Einsteinian thought experiment,
not a theory).

I would like to add that it is exciting to see these debates in progress
rather than only reading their published outcomes.

Clifford Stetner

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.