1999

Re: Pasties

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1083  Tuesday, 29 June 1999.

[1]     From:   Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 28 Jun 1999 11:56:29 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1074 Shakespeare's Pasty

[2]     From:   Melissa D. Aaron <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 28 Jun 1999 13:16:47 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1074 Shakespeare's Pasty

[3]     From:   Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 28 Jun 1999 12:10:29 -0400
        Subj:   The Worst Pies in London

[4]     From:   Julia MacKenzie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 29 Jun 1999 19:09:06 +1000
        Subj:   Re: Pasties


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 28 Jun 1999 11:56:29 EDT
Subject: 10.1074 Shakespeare's Pasty
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1074 Shakespeare's Pasty

>The ongoing discussion of pasties reminds me of the related passage in
>Hamlet, where Pyrrhus becomes one:

>                               Head to foot
> Now is be total gules, horridly trick'd
> With blood of fathers, mothers, daughters, sons,
> Bak'd and impasted with the parching streets,
> That lend a tyrannous and a damned light
> To their lord's murther. Roasted in wrath and fire,
> And thus o'ersized with coagulate gore,
> With eyes like carbuncles, the hellish Pyrrhus
> Old grandsire Priam seeks.
>
>This description from the discourse of cooking chimes with other things
>in the play, from the Ghost's posset and curd and vile crust, to Pyrrhus
>mincing old Priam, to Polonius dining (rhyming with Pyrrhus) not where
>he eats but where he is eaten.
>
>What do folks think about this strand of cooking, eating, and food
>references?

It being lunchtime, Frank -- yuck!

But I think it has to do with the something that is rotting in
Denmark-and with Hamlet pere's flesh and skin being devoured by the
poison (I don't have the text here, but it follows the Ghost's
description of the murder in the garden . . . "in at the porches of mine
ear," as I recall, probably abysmally).

Best,
Carol Barton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Melissa D. Aaron <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 28 Jun 1999 13:16:47 -0400
Subject: 10.1074 Shakespeare's Pasty
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1074 Shakespeare's Pasty

>The ongoing discussion of pasties reminds me of the related passage in
>Hamlet, where Pyrrhus becomes one:
>
>                               Head to foot
> Now is be total gules, horridly trick'd
> With blood of fathers, mothers, daughters, sons,
> Bak'd and impasted with the parching streets,
> That lend a tyrannous and a damned light
> To their lord's murther. Roasted in wrath and fire,
> And thus o'ersized with coagulate gore,
> With eyes like carbuncles, the hellish Pyrrhus
> Old grandsire Priam seeks.
>
>This description from the discourse of cooking chimes with other things
>in the play, from the Ghost's posset and curd and vile crust, to Pyrrhus
>mincing old Priam, to Polonius dining (rhyming with Pyrrhus) not where
>he eats but where he is eaten.
>
>What do folks think about this strand of cooking, eating, and food
>references?
>
>Frank Whigham

The Reduced Shakespeare Company pointed out on their radio show a long
time ago that what with the references to vegetation "Oh that this too
too salad fresh should melt," expiration dates "something is rotten in
the state of Denmark" and Hamlet's own comments "I shall think meat
hereafter" that (and I quote):  "Boom!  There's your smoking gun, my
friends.  The play is about food."

Let's not forget Polonius's alternate occupation (fishmonger)  nor the
nummy herbs that Ophelia hands out (rosemary goes better with lamb,
though.)

So all in all, I think the RSC may be right. The play is about Hamlet's
"edible complex."

Melissa  D.  Aaron
University of Michigan

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 28 Jun 1999 12:10:29 -0400
Subject:        The Worst Pies in London

Re the most direct connection between Shakespeare and pasties:

If you go into the woods today,
You're going to get a surprise
If you go into the woods today,
You'd better believe your eyes (or someone's)
'Cos today is the day the Andronici are having their picnic.

Dana Shilling

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Julia MacKenzie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 29 Jun 1999 19:09:06 +1000
Subject:        Re: Pasties

The pasty thread reminds me of the Noel Coward exchange that had an
Englishman and an American driving along in a car.  It started to rain
and the American said, "Turn on the windshield wipers", to which the
Englishman said "It's a windscreen".  The American said, "Look here, we
invented the motor car" to which the Englishman said, "Yes, but we
invented the language".

Julia MacKenzie.

Re: Tangent to Byron Comment

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1082  Monday, 28 June 1999.

From:           Roger Schmeeckle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 26 Jun 1999 10:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:        Tangent to Byron Comment

> From:           J. H. McWilliams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
> Date:           Tuesday, 15 Jun 1999 14:38:45 +0100 (BST)
> Subject:        SHK 10.1006 Tangent to Byron Comment

> Who is this Byron, by the way? I'm doing research on Shakespeare. Is
> he/she as good as him?

No, he/she is not as good as him/her.

Byron was an English Lord who was, probably without warrant, accused of
having an incestuous relationship with his sister, probably with warrant
regarded as bisexual, and a radical revolutionary.  In other words, he
was politically correct before it was politically correct to be
politically correct.

He was also a very great poet, but who the hell cares?

     Roger Schmeeckle

Re: Pronouncing Bullough

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1080  Monday, 28 June 1999.

From:           Peter Groves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 26 Jun 1999 11:15:57 +1000
Subject: 10.1070 Re: Pronouncing Bullough
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1070 Re: Pronouncing Bullough

> > I would appreciate if anyone can tell me how to correctly pronounce the
> > last name of Geoffrey Bullough, author of "Narrative and Dramatic
> > Sources of Shakespeare".
>
> Like Buller, so it rhymes with "focus puller", and "my glass is fuller".
>
> Gabriel Egan
>
Daniel Jones has it rhyming with the first two syllables of "pullover"

Peter Groves

Re: Buggering and Biggering

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1081  Monday, 28 June 1999.

From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 26 Jun 1999 19:31:46 +0100
Subject:        Re: Buggering and Biggering

Concerning accurate quotation, Harry Hill says that I

> hate the word "correct", of course . . . I use it in
> the sense of "accurately recreating the original without
> editorial interpretation".

No-one is advocating sloppiness, but your sense of the value of fidelity
is questionable. You accept, I'm sure, that the texts you are using are
already editorially interpreted, so it's not the fruit of the
uber-phallus you're committing to memory. Wouldn't you agree that a
certain looseness with the words-but a fidelity to the ideas-might be a
more Shakespearian principle?

> I take it you are willing to agree that other cultures
> and social strata than your own are permitted, within
> their talents and possibilities, to differentiate
> between and [sic!] and low artistic achievements, however "well"
> or "badly".

I'm sorry to appear dense on this, but really this highly mutable term
'culture' is throwing me off. If 'culture' is the good stuff, and it is
the ethnically-shared collection of good and bad stuff, aren't we just
playing humpty-dumpty with the word?

>Sean: your response didn't clear this one up either. Do you
>see no problem here? (If none, I will desist.)

I asked if Harry's advocating of us all being "buggered and biggered"
meant that Shakespeare's merit was penis-like. Harry answered:

> Of course not, you silly boy. Any creative reproductive
> tool will suffice, of whatever size or gender.

A person can't be buggered by a vagina, uterus, or ovaries.  Your word
'tool' is illuminating; this phallo-centrism isn't simply a failure to
balance the genders and your use of a female pronoun ("rightly calls
herself cultured") doesn't make it all okay. Here's what's problematic
about what you're saying...

In Plato's academy the students weren't allowed to sit down: they were
required to walk around and talk. The idea was that speech was primary,
it articulated the soul, and writing a pale imitation of speech lacking
in the important attribute of presence. Moreover writing is revisable
and hence suspect.  (Doesn't this phono-centric tradition feature in the
claim that Shakespeare almost never blotted his manuscripts?) This Greek
educational tradition was unashamedly misogynistic and promoted forced
buggery of boys as an learning experience. Doesn't your use of the word
'biggered' have this connotation of educative anal enlargment? English
single-sex schools have a terrible inheritance of this nasty tradition,
and almost weekly over here another teacher is found guilty of sexually
abusing the children. What you write about Shakespeare "buggering and
biggering" us when we commit his words to memory fits right into this
horrid phono- and phallo-centric tradition.

Gabriel Egan

PS Apologies to anyone who has taken Derrida-101.

Re: Time in Comedy of Errors

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1079  Monday, 28 June 1999.

From:           Roger Schmeeckle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 26 Jun 1999 10:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:        Time in Comedy of Errors

> I'm currently directing a production of "Comedy of Errors," and I'm
> curious about how list members interpret the incident in IV. ii., in  l.
> 55 - 65, when Dromio of Syracuse hears a clock strike on o'clock and
> comments, "It was two ere I left him {Antipholus}, and now the clock
> strikes one."  The dialogue between Dromio and Adriana goes on to
> suggest, although Adriana doesn't buy it, that time has actually
> reversed itself by one hour.  I can see two possible interpretations:
> why?  Thanks for any input you can give me about this, and about any
> questions I may raise in the next couple of weeks.

Among the interpretations, do not forget to consider the following:

     1) There was just a change to daylight saving time.

     2) There was an eleven hour lapse.

     3) This is the first literary reference to time travel.

And don't forget that this is a Comedy of Errors.

     Roger Schmeeckle

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.