1999

Re: Trivial Observation

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

Re: Productions of Much Ado

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.

W.H. and Hoghton Tower

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)

Re: URLs

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

Re: Wedding Proposal

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


Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.