June
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0933 Wednesday, 2 June 1999. [1] From: Chantal Schutz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 01 Jun 1999 15:53:03 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 10.0919 Various Hamlet Postings [2] From: Maijan H. Al-Ruwaili <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 01 Jun 1999 19:36:48 +0300 Subj: Re: SHK 10.0919 Various Hamlet Postings [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chantal Schutz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 01 Jun 1999 15:53:03 -0400 Subject: 10.0919 Various Hamlet Postings Comment: Re: SHK 10.0919 Various Hamlet Postings The more famous translations of Hamlet are by: Francois-Victor Hugo (son of Victor), late 19th c. There was a bilingual edition of Hamlet in 1947 by M.Castelain (Aubier) The first collected edition of Shakespeare by the very serious La Pleiade was in 1959 A bilingual collected edition was published between 1954 and 1961 by Pierre Leyriis and Henri Evans One of the best available translations is by Yves Bonnefoy (a famous poet himself), 1957, revised 1988 All the best. Chantal [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maijan H. Al-Ruwaili <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 01 Jun 1999 19:36:48 +0300 Subject: 10.0919 Various Hamlet Postings Comment: Re: SHK 10.0919 Various Hamlet Postings Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > wrote: >My library has only one copy of Hamlet is French, that of Clara >(Longworth) comtesse de Chambrun. Would any of you folks know if this >is the "standard" French translation, and whether it would have enjoyed >such a status in the late 1940s? Hamlet seems to be attracting enough attention in this decade. Derrida refers to the following translations: Hamlet, trans. Jules Derocquigny (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1989). Hamlet, trans. Jean Malaplate (Paris: Corti, 1991). Hamlet, trans. Yves Bonnefoy (Paris: Gallimard, Folio, 1992). The earliest translation to which Derrida refers in Specters of Marx is Andre Gide's (Paris: Gallimard, Bibliotheque de la Pleiade, 1959). I would assume that if the translation of Clara (Longworth) comtesse de Chambrun was "standard" at the time, Derrida would not have neglected her text. Maijan
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0932 Wednesday, 2 June 1999. [1] From: Chantal Schutz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 01 Jun 1999 15:52:44 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 10.0906 Pronunciation of Fortinbras [2] From: Susan Gray <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 1 Jun 1999 23:04:48 EDT Subj: RE: Titles from Macbeth or Tempest [3] From: Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 1 Jun 1999 18:34:28 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 10.0924 Re: Various Hamlet Postings [4] From: Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 1 Jun 1999 19:19:54 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 10.0925 Shakespeare, Internet, Movies, and More [5] From: Tal Carawan, Jr. <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 01 Jun 1999 14:23:03 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 10.0915 Richard II Pronunciation Question [6] From: Reg Grouse <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 2 Jun 1999 22:03:30 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 10.0921 Trip to Stratford and London in August [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chantal Schutz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 01 Jun 1999 15:52:44 -0400 Subject: 10.0906 Pronunciation of Fortinbras Comment: Re: SHK 10.0906 Pronunciation of Fortinbras >While I won't quibble on meaning or French pronunciation, Hamlet's >pronunciation of Fortinbras was most probably not French-consult the F1 >spelling: "Fortenbrasse." Well, of course, French pronunciation in 1600 was rather different from now too, and the F1 spelling exactly reflects the way a Frenchman would have pronounced it then... All the best, Chantal Shakespeare's Globe University of Reading Website: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/globe [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Gray <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 1 Jun 1999 23:04:48 EDT Subject: RE: Titles from Macbeth or Tempest Tanya, Here are a pair of Canadian entries for you: _Tempest Tost_ by Robertson Davies _Give Sorrow Words_ by Marcy Holder (her journals and, sadly, out of print) Susan Gray [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 1 Jun 1999 18:34:28 +0100 Subject: 10.0924 Re: Various Hamlet Postings Comment: Re: SHK 10.0924 Re: Various Hamlet Postings >>Were black and red ink used to distinguish between debits and credits? >>I thought it was positive and negative numbers, which is not the same >>thing. >To that much, Larry, I can say yes, on no authority but custom >Carol Barton --also if you go the Format/Cells area of Excel, and flag "Currency", you're given a choice of style, including red-for-debit, negative for debit, and red-and-negative for debit [a double-negative?]. So the usage has survived even unto the electronic heights of Gatesworld. But when +did+ it start? Robin Hamilton [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 1 Jun 1999 19:19:54 +0100 Subject: 10.0925 Shakespeare, Internet, Movies, and More Comment: Re: SHK 10.0925 Shakespeare, Internet, Movies, and More >Actors in the Elizabethan era were considered immoral, akin to >prostitutes and therefore a play would be considered an immoral >recreation. If this is so, then why where they so frequented? I think this conflates two separate issues. One is the LEGAL status of players, who were technically "vagabonds", and had to be 'sponsored'-thus, The Admiral's Men, etc. The other is the Puritan (MORAL) attacks on plays and players as "immoral, akin to prostitutes"-brilliantly sent-up in the climax of Ben Jonson's +Bartholomew Fair+. Not all Elizabethans (and especially not Elizabeth) bought the Puritan line. Robin Hamilton. [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tal Carawan, Jr. <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 01 Jun 1999 14:23:03 -0400 Subject: 10.0915 Richard II Pronunciation Question Comment: Re: SHK 10.0915 Richard II Pronunciation Question Thank you, Dale for your thoughtful response on the pronunciation of Barloughly...I settle on this name for the castle in Richard II (3.2) vs. Harlech as 3 of my 4 texts have Barloughly, including my copy of the folio (Mr. William Shakespeare's Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies : A Facsimile of the First Folio 1623, edited by Doug Moston), which I prefer to use as an actor. Do you not consider the "lock" for loch or loughe, i.e. Bar-lock-lee? Or "log?" This is based on "loughe" being an Irish version of the Scottish "loch," and my (Random House) dictionary offering a pronuciation identical to "loch." It sounds like the "k" stays in "bark." Dale's versions are: "if you keep Barkloughly you have the option of either /BARK leck lee, BARK loh lee (which would be based on the archaic Hertlowli) or /bark LECK lee, bark LOW lee/..." While my first feeling was to go with "bar-LOCK-lee." OK, so I'm completely uncertain now. Has anyone seen Richard II, and can remember what was said, or does anyone have access to an audio recording? I am aware that there are two VHS editions about, but I do not access to them, nor am I certain the castle name would even be mentioned. I have considered calling it simply "Richard's Castle" and let it go at that, or even picking up the monologue with "I weep for joy..." The second might be a weasel's choice, but the first might indeed be the action of a king! Any thought's on the below adaptation? "Richard's Castle call you this at hand? ... Needs must I like it well: I weep for joy..." and I would emphasize the Richard to distinguish it as my kingly interpretation of whatever castle name is mentioned to him. Thanks again! Tal Carawan, Jr. [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Reg Grouse <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 2 Jun 1999 22:03:30 +1000 Subject: 10.0921 Trip to Stratford and London in August Comment: Re: SHK 10.0921 Trip to Stratford and London in August Joe Conlon's request for knowledge about the Shakespeare Teachers Conference at Stratford which was advertised for the beginning of August has been cancelled for lack of support. Too bad!
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0931 Wednesday, 2 June 1999. From: Holger Klein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 01 Jun 1999 12:30:13 -0400 Subject: Re: Shakespeare and the Visual Arts REMINDER: Vol. XI (2000) of the Shakespeare Yearbook will have for its main theme SHAKESPEARE IN THE VISUAL ARTS and will be edited by Jim Harner and Holger Klein. We are inviting studies of up to 25 double-spaced pages (including notes), perhaps accompanied by about 4 black-and-white illustrations, dealing with the reception of Shakespeare by visual artists. Quite a number of articles have already been offered and accepted, but there is room for more, ranging from book illustration to stage design, from painting to photography, sculpture to advertising and the cybermedia. Please send proposals now to either Jim Harner, Texas A&M University, Fax +001-409-862-2292, e-mail:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. OR to Holger Klein, University of Salzburg, Fax +43-662-8044-613, e-mailThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. The deadline for submissions is 31st December, 1999. Further information and a style sheet will be sent on request.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0930 Wednesday, 2 June 1999. [1] From: Charles Costello <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 1 Jun 1999 11:37:46 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 10.0927 "Protesting too much" [2] From: Stuart Manger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 1 Jun 1999 22:08:47 +0100 Subj: SHK 10.0927 "Protesting too much" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Costello <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 1 Jun 1999 11:37:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 10.0927 "Protesting too much" Comment: Re: SHK 10.0927 "Protesting too much" Are there rhetorical or poetical terms for lies? There are certainly theological terms for such utterances. See Craun, Edwin. Lies, Slander, and Obscenity in Medieval English Literature: Pastoral Rhetoric and the Deviant Speaker. Cambridge: CUP, 1997. The theological prohibition against lying greatly mediates any direct incorporation of actual lying into verbal systems, such as poetics and rhetoric, that seek cultural legitimacy in societies that partake of such ideals. In such a society, the state doesn't lie either, of course. "Propaganda" is one term that comes to mind. I can imagine a Canadian newspaper celebrating yet another campaign against poverty, but I still prefer to live with that than the headlines of state-run media. Chuck Costello University of Toronto M. Morford wrote, in part: >What is it called when one makes a statement like Cassio's "I'm not >drunk. This is my right hand, etc" in "Othello." Surely the only time >one would make that statement is when one IS drunk. Just as the media in >China would say that there are no beggars only because there ARE >beggars. > >Could you imagine a headline in the US proclaiming the elimination of >poverty? > >I just saw that headline in Beijing. > >What is that called? How could I trace these kinds of statements? > >How do I categorize/interpret these kinds of statements? > >Hamlet's "Methinks he doth protest too much" sums it up, but do we have >a name for it? [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Manger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 1 Jun 1999 22:08:47 +0100 Subject: "Protesting too much" Comment: SHK 10.0927 "Protesting too much" 'So are they all, all honourable men' Same kind of irony? Followed by Oct /Ant: 'See with a spot I damn him'? And Lady Macbeth: 'What need we fear it when none can call our power to accompt'? Stuart Manger
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0929 Wednesday, 2 June 1999. [1] From: Brian Haylett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 1 Jun 1999 16:27:11 +0100 Subj: Re: Chooseth [2] From: Lawrence Manley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 1 Jun 1999 15:03:36 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 10.0926 Responses [3] From: Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 1 Jun 1999 17:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 10.0912 Various Responses [4] From: John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 2 Jun 1999 10:08:49 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 10.0926 Responses [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Haylett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 1 Jun 1999 16:27:11 +0100 Subject: Re: Chooseth Ed Taft says: 'In my view, Brian Haylett idealizes Portia in much the same way that an earlier generation of critics idealized Henry V and the Duke in Measure for Measure.' It is just as well then that I scuffled briefly with Ed a few weeks back when I was on the side of those who regard Henry as a highly dubious character. I am not going to slot into any one-answer-fits-all category, and I am not going to follow Ed into the New Cynicical approach to Portia, which seems to me an attempt to direct 'Shakespeare Meets Frasier and Friends'. What is needed now, I feel, is a revival of Jungian criticism, because The Merchant is a textbook example. Being a dabbler, I do not know if Jung ever tackled it himself, but it hardly requires a genius. Antonio is Ego, and Shylock is his Shadow - the dark possibilities within Antonio's trade. Bassanio is his Inferior Function, his risk-taking aspect, who ventures forth to contact Antonio's Anima, Portia (whose hidden identification with Antonio was signaled in their near-identical opening lines). Portia - surrounded by units of three, as Jung predicts - is won by Bassanio, just as Jung says the Inferior Function is often the saviour of the Ego. The winning consists of choosing base lead, the alchemical symbol of the unregenerate self, which allows healing to begin. Thus won, Portia/Anima descends into Antonio's world to rescue his body and subdue his Shadow. Antonio/Ego can then ascend into Portia's 'Belmont' and there begin the final move towards Selfhood by acknowledging the union of Inferior Function and Anima - by settling their quarrel - and, in doing so, recognise his own soul. This is performed by night, which traditionally precedes the moment of illumination. 'Fair ladies, you drop manna in the way Of starved people,' says Lorenzo. 'It is almost morning,' responds Portia. All of which will sound like gibberish to those who do not know something about Jung, but one cannot compromise. I tried to put it a different way in my first letter to the group last November or December, and clearly failed. Clifford Stetner and I differ greatly about our readings of this play, but we each offer an integrated approach. Can someone who prefers Portia as calculating minx please explicate the rest of their interpretation of the play? [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lawrence Manley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 1 Jun 1999 15:03:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 10.0926 Responses Comment: Re: SHK 10.0926 Responses On Tuesday, 1 Jun 1999, Bill Godshalk wrote: >Portia lives in Belmont with no >visible means of support, so we may assume that she has money, and does >not worry about making it. But do we assume that her money comes from >capitalist ventures, or that Belmont is an aristoratic great house and >her wealth comes from traditional rents and obligations? Is she buying >her way into the peerage, or is she already there? Not an answer to your good question, Bill, and in any case I may have missed enough of the earlier conversation to be repeating what others may have observed, but I find it interesting to note the order (and emphasis?) of the information Bassanio gives to Antonio about Portia: "In Belmont..." [great address!] "...is a lady..." [right pedigree] "...richly left" [she's got money and it's HERS!] "And she is fair..." [fortunately, she's good-looking, too] "...and fairer than that word, Of wondrous virtues." Thank goodness he includes the last, and perhaps that's where the real emphasis lies, but certainly in tension with the other principle of priority in the list. I take this to be a comment on Bassanio rather than Portia. The most damaging reading of Portia I've seen is in Lars Engle's Shakespeare's Pragamatism. Following Lenin's advice, Engle (is there a pattern here?) follows the money in the play and shows Portia to be its most astute manager. Larry Manley Yale University [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 1 Jun 1999 17:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 10.0912 Various Responses Comment: Re: SHK 10.0912 Various Responses Brian Haylett wrote, <snip>Portia was conceived as something rather >spiritual ('He that hath ears to hear'), a 'genius' in the Elizabethan >sense, while fully admitting there are very different sides to her. To >make her into a racist seems to me more than a little crass, I regret to >say. OED finds 'complexion' to refer to the humours, disposition, and >physical constitution in its earliest references. Colour of skin had >just begun to appear - and does appear in Merchant, 'the shadowed livery >of the burnished sun'. It does not follow that every Shakespearean usage >ignores the earlier meanings (which were none of them extinct). Cf >Winter's Tale I.ii: 'Your changed complexions are to me a mirror Which >shows me mine changed.' But wouldn't the meaning of complexion be colored (I couldn't resist) by the person being alluded to? A Moroccan prince might be expected to evoke the newer definition. I've always taken this comment to be a reciprocation of Morocco's bad choice of caskets. As he has chosen on the basis of complexion (i.e. outward hue (similarly ambiguous, but I mean the color of gold)) Portia rejects him on the same grounds. Clifford Stetner CUNY www.columbia.edu/~fs10/cds.htm [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 2 Jun 1999 10:08:49 +0100 Subject: 10.0926 Responses Comment: RE: SHK 10.0926 Responses On the Lord Bassanio question you might like to have a look at Alessandra Marzola's excellent essay in the ESSE journal volume for December 1998 entitled "Current Shakespeare". She draws a fascinating distinction between Bassanio as a member of the aristocracy (hence "Lord") and Antonio who is a "merchant". Cheers, John Drakakis