November
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1884 Wednesday, 3 November 1999. [1] From: John Nettles <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 2 Nov 1999 16:54:34 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 10.1876 Re: Trivial Observation [2] From: Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 2 Nov 1999 17:28:04 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 10.1876 Re: Trivial Observation [3] From: Peter T. Hadorn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 02 Nov 1999 16:55:28 -0600 Subj: RE: SHK 10.1876 Re: Trivial Observation [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Nettles <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 2 Nov 1999 16:54:34 -0500 Subject: 10.1876 Re: Trivial Observation Comment: RE: SHK 10.1876 Re: Trivial Observation >Of course, this quibble doesn't help much with your query about >Shakespeare's references to a Duke of Milan. I tend to chalk such >repetition up to coincidences stemming from Shakespeare's use of Italian >settings, but I'm sure someone else probably has a better answer. Or in the case of _Measure for Measure_ Shakespeare's use of that brief period when Italy annexed Vienna... John G. Nettles Instructor, Dept. of Language and Literature North Georgia College and State University [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 2 Nov 1999 17:28:04 -0500 Subject: 10.1876 Re: Trivial Observation Comment: Re: SHK 10.1876 Re: Trivial Observation Meg's point draws attention to a discrepancy between the historical Shakespeare (notoriously elusive), who went on collaborating after 1613, and the canonized "Shakespeare" who autobiographically vowed to toss his magic books into the sea at the end of Tempest. Without questioning the existence of the former, I think the Duke's presence in these two plays is designed as a pair of bookends delimiting the canon of the latter, an intentionally mythologized Bard, born and deceased on the feast of St. George (if you believe that one). Clifford Stetner CUNY C.W. Post College [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter T. Hadorn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 02 Nov 1999 16:55:28 -0600 Subject: 10.1876 Re: Trivial Observation Comment: RE: SHK 10.1876 Re: Trivial Observation While we're talking about trivial first and last connections, more than one article has been written on the connections between "Two Noble Kinsmen" and "Midsummer Night's Dream," both of which feature Theseus, Duke of Athens. Peter T. Hadorn
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1883 Wednesday, 3 November 1999. From: Pervez Rizvi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 2 Nov 1999 21:51:39 -0000 Subject: 10.1864 Re: Productions of Much Ado Comment: RE: SHK 10.1864 Re: Productions of Much Ado Paul Swanson wrote: >I was fascinated by Pervez Rizvi's insight that Innogen, Leonato's wife >who may or may not be a character in Much Ado, could have such a >profound impact on the nature of the play. Credit where it's due: the insight was by John Drakakis, not me. I'm actually not convinced by it: (i) The absence of Innogen is paralleled by the absence of mothers in several plays, presumably because there was a limited number of boys capable of playing maternal roles. (ii) Fathers try to exercise their 'right' to choose their daughters' suitors in several plays, so Leonato's telling Hero what her answer to the Prince shall be is nothing peculiar to this play. (iii) This just leaves Benedick's "Peace, I will stop your mouth" upon which to build a case for the silencing of women in this play. I don't think it's enough. Rather than singling out this play, it's more profitable to consider why women in a number of Shakespeare plays are silent at key moments. Peter Hyland wrote: >Thersites in TROILUS AND CRESSIDA announces his bastardy only in >his final speech I certainly don't want to defend this to the death as it's a minor point. But I can't help feeling that Thersites' being a bastard is different to the other examples: Edmund, Falconbridge, and Margareton (the bastard son of Priam in T&C). For each of these three, we have the evidence of speech-prefixes ("Bast.") and stage directions ("Enter Bastard") in the original texts, presumably deriving from Shakespeare's own manuscripts. Thersites' claim to being a bastard reads merely like his predictable response to Margareton's mention of the word. P.S. The information I gave this morning about Double Falsehood needs to be corrected: the theatre that burned down was Covent Garden, not Drury Lane, and it appears that the play had a limited success before it disappeared from the stage. You can find detailed information in, among other places, the latest issue (December 1998) of Shakespeare Survey.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1882 Wednesday, 3 November 1999. From: Moray McConnachie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 2 Nov 1999 21:41:00 -0000 Subject: 10.1872 Re: URLs Comment: Re: SHK 10.1872 Re: URLs >Actually both URLs are clickable. If the computer and software are >up-to-date, there should be no difference-as there was not for me in >Christine's example pair. However, the version without http:// is not technically a URL. URL's must begin by defining their type, and therefore in this case it must begin http:// This is not pointless rule-keeping. To some email programmes it makes a different, and to some sites also. For example ftp://cpan.org is quite different from http://cpan.org See http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1738.html if you are really interested. Yours, Moray McConnachie
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1881 Wednesday, 3 November 1999. From: Hilary Thimmesh <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 2 Nov 1999 13:12:18 -0600 Subject: W.H. and Hoghton Tower I've just re-read Honigmann's Shakespeare: The "Lost Years" in its second edition (1998). William Hoghton, brother of Richard, is mentioned without comment. In Berryman's Shakespeare (1999) I discover that John Berryman suggested forty years ago that William Hoghton-strikingly handsome, younger than Shakespeare, probably a playwright with the Lord Admiral's Men-was the most plausible candidate for "Mr. W.H." A note by the editor, John Haffenden, calls attention to the same identification suggested by Alan Keen in 1950. Has someone since Keen and Berryman authoritatively discounted William Hoghton as Mr. W.H., an identification that otherwise would seem to be grist for Honigmann's mill? Hilary Thimmesh St. John's (MN)
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1880 Wednesday, 3 November 1999. [1] From: Eduardo del Rio <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 02 Nov 1999 12:05:24 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 10.1870 Please Help with My Wedding Proposal [2] From: Marti Markus <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 02 Nov 1999 19:28:21 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 10.1870 Please Help with My Wedding Proposal [3] From: Yvonne Bruce <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 02 Nov 1999 15:31:47 -0500 Subj: Wedding Proposal Post [4] From: Joe Conlon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 2 Nov 1999 16:36:13 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 10.1870 Please Help with My Wedding Proposal [5] From: Melissa Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 2 Nov 1999 15:17:23 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 10.1870 Please Help with My Wedding Proposal [6] From: John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 3 Nov 99 0:03:30 EST Subj: Re: SHK 10.1870 Please Help with My Wedding Proposal [7] From: Charles Edelman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 3 Nov 1999 07:39:40 +8/00 Subj: Re: SHK 10.1870 Please Help with My Wedding Proposal [8] From: Karen Peterson-Kranz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 3 Nov 1999 15:12:40 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 10.1870 Please Help with My Wedding Proposal [9] From: Matthew C. Hansen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 03 Nov 1999 03:23:44 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 10.1870 Please Help with My Wedding Proposal [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eduardo del Rio <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 02 Nov 1999 12:05:24 -0600 Subject: 10.1870 Please Help with My Wedding Proposal Comment: Re: SHK 10.1870 Please Help with My Wedding Proposal Dear Ron, There are many lines/scenes which come to mind. However, it seems to me that your words would be much more effective and will give you a better chance of receiving a standing ovation. Good luck. Eduardo [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marti Markus <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 02 Nov 1999 19:28:21 +0100 Subject: 10.1870 Please Help with My Wedding Proposal Comment: Re: SHK 10.1870 Please Help with My Wedding Proposal > I am looking for a good Wedding Proposal-type soliloquy in order to ask > my girlfriend to marry me. Basically, I am going to ride up to her on > Sunday (Nov 7th) on a White Horse in this great White Prince's costume. > I have everything rented (including the minstrel band) and now I need > the words... > > I heard that the wedding scene in The Tempest was good and that there > may be a few sonnets to look into but I was wondering if our group had > any ideas. If you do, please post them verbatim so that I can start > memorizing them right away. > > Thank you, > Ron Benoit Dear Ron, why a soliloquy? and why not just ask her in your own words? Good Luck! Honestly yours, Markus. Unless you really want to make a fool of yourself, then what about: "I am giddy; expectation whirls me round. / Th'imaginary relish is so sweet / That it enchants my sense. What will it be/ When that the wat'ry palates taste indeed / Love's thrice-reputed nectar?" (Tr. and Cr., III.2.17ff) There is also a passage in Twelfth Night, III.4.271ff: "I'll make the motion. Stand here; make a good show on't. This shall end without the perdition of souls. Marry, I'll ride your horse as well as I ride you." But this needs some improvement - you will need to wear your yellow stockings, and the text should go like this: "I'll make the motion. (to your horse:) Stand here; make a good show on't. (to yourself:) This shall end without the perdition of souls. (to your girlfriend:) Marry me! I'll ride you as well as I ride my horse." Tell us her reaction! Markus Marti [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Yvonne Bruce <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 02 Nov 1999 15:31:47 -0500 Subject: Wedding Proposal Post Mr. Benoit could do no better, in my opinion, than Florizel to Perdita in The Winter's Tale: When you speak, sweet, I'd have you do it ever. When you sing, I'd have you buy and sell so, so give alms, Pray so; and, for the ordering your affairs, To sing them too. When you do dance, I wish you A wave o' the sea, that you might ever do Nothing but that--move still, still so, And own no other function. Each your doing, So singular in each particular, Crowns what you are doing in the present deeds, That all your acts are queens (4.4.136-46). [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Conlon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 2 Nov 1999 16:36:13 -0500 Subject: 10.1870 Please Help with My Wedding Proposal Comment: Re: SHK 10.1870 Please Help with My Wedding Proposal My daughter and her groom had me recite this one at their wedding ceremony. Joe Conlon, Warsaw, IN Sonnet 116 Let me not to the marriage of true minds Admit impediments. Love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds, Or bends with the remover to remove. Oh no! It is an ever fix