March
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0428 Wednesday, 1 March 2000. From: Briggs John <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 1 Mar 2000 08:29:59 -0000 Subject: 11.0410 Scene Divisions in MND Comment: RE: SHK 11.0410 Scene Divisions in MND Bill Godshalk seemed to be requesting help with the scene divisions in MND. Ever willing to be helpful, I checked Arden 2, Oxford, and Oxford Complete Shakespeare (Original-Spelling Edition + Textual Companion). In fact, the scene divisions seem quite straightforward. There are two examples of the "scene division" in dispute (clear stage with no time-break) at OCS lines 1394 and 2064. Rather more interesting is the fact that the Folio Act divisions for Acts 3 and 4 occur when the stage is not quite clear (sleeping characters)! There are no scene divisions in F. I would make the following recommendations for scene divisions. If you are making a modern-spelling edition, follow the traditional act and scene divisions: 1.1 1-251 1.2 252-355 2.1 356-623 2.2 624-785 3.1 786-981 3.2 982-1441 4.1 1442-1657 4.2 1658-1700 5.1 1701-2132 If you are making an original-spelling edition, ignore the act divisions: 1. 1-251 2. 252-355 3. 356-623 4. 624-981 5. 982-1657 6. 1658-1700 7. 1701-2132 If you are putting on a production, have your interval after 3.1/981. My argument is that F scene divisions may be trusted, but act divisions should be treated with scepticism. John Briggs
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0427 Wednesday, 1 March 2000. From: Jinny Webber <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 28 Feb 2000 22:52:23 EST Subject: MSD in Art To the SHAKSPER List: Right now I'm trying to put together a slide show to precede a public 'faculty lecture' entitled "Myth, Magic, and Metamorphosis" which I'm delivering on March 22 at my community college. I'm focusing on Ovid and Shakespeare (with a passing nod to Apuleius) and specifically, among related ideas, on ass' ears. Henry Fuseli and, more weirdly, Richard Dadd, painted Midsummer Night's Dream/Bottom-Titania works. The nearest university arts library has non-circulating catalogues of some these paintings but offers no color xerox or slide-making facilities. I've been trying to get some images from the Internet, so far unsuccessfully. If anyone has further suggestions, either of other art images or where to find them, please let me know-off line is fine. Thank you! Jinny Webber
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0426 Wednesday, 1 March 2000. From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 29 Feb 2000 08:32:51 -0000 Subject: 11.0410 Re: Twelfth Night Comment: RE: SHK 11.0410 Re: Twelfth Night I am actually quite circumspect in my assertions, but I shall try and answer Bill Godshalk's points as best I can. Firstly, I regard 1623 as "contemporary": whoever made the transcript of TN that was the printer's copy (and whenever they made it), they were considerably closer to the time of the performance of the plays than we are. Secondly, I make the rash assumption than the person (presumably the transcriber, possibly an "editor") who inserted the act and scene divisions knew what they were doing: if we think they were "wrong", how do we know we are "right"? Act divisions are believed to post-date 1609 (don't ask: it is presumably something to do with indoor theatres...), and hence not be authorial. Scene divisions are relatively unusual in the First Folio (about one third of the plays). Thirdly, the "scene division" in question (exit without a time-break), is not particularly unusual: there are three examples in Edward III, and the latest editorial thinking is not to insert a scene division in these circumstances. John Briggs
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0425 Wednesday, 1 March 2000. From: Justin Drewry <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 29 Feb 2000 13:18:46 -0500 Subject: MLA Special Session I am posting to discover the interest in a special panel at MLA on Shakespeare's "Aspects of Influence." This title recalls the Harvard Literary Series publication that featured several essays considering Shakespeare's continued influence in the field of literature. Since it is a special session I would like to narrow the topic specifically to the Victorian period. Perhaps even more narrow. If you think that you would have interest in participating in such a panel please send me a personal email so that I can evaluate the general interest. If there is enough interest, then I anticipate that I would require abstracts of papers be submitted by 3/21 so that I could select the participants. Thank you, Andy DrewryThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0424 Wednesday, 1 March 2000. From: Mary Jane Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 28 Feb 2000 13:00:00 -0500 Subject: 11.0327 Re: Stage Combat Comment: Re: SHK 11.0327 Re: Stage Combat As I understand the scene, Hamlet is wounded, therefore the point is unbated and he knows it . He wants the other sword. He forces the issue and gets it. I like Olivier's staging when he forces Laertes to the ground, steps on his foil and forces the exchange by handing him his own bated foil -- but other ways also work. No double disarm is needed. Hamlet is already ahead on points when Laertes stabs him and fuelled by rage controls the final bout. [I'm not fond of the Olivier but no one did the duel better.] What I am not sure about is what difference the change of the actual weapons used as signified in the difference between F1 edition and the Q. Perhaps someone could tell me? Mary Jane