2000

Re: Screen Saver

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2005  Wednesday, 31 October 2000.

From:           Bob Haas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 12:55:05 -0500
Subject: 11.1994 Re: Screen Saver
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1994 Re: Screen Saver

They're not available for Macs, but they have Mac 17"Studio display in
the upper left-hand corner of the page.  Very misleading.

bob

> The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1994  Tuesday, 31 October 2000.
>
> From:           Joe Conlon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
> Date:           Sunday, 29 Oct 2000 12:16:16 -0500
> Subject:        Re: SHK 11.1975 Screen Saver
>
> Try cassdesign.com .  They have Power Quotes from Shakespeare which I
> like very well.  I'm not sure if it is available for MAC or not, but it
> is worth a try.
>
> Joe Conlon, Warsaw, IN, USA

Re: Apes and Monkeys

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2004  Wednesday, 31 October 2000.

[1]     From:   Tom Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 12:05:44 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1992 Apes and Monkeys

[2]     From:   David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 18:06:24 GMT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1992 Apes and Monkeys

[3]     From:   Jim Lake <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 12:08:58 -0600
        Subj:   RE: SHK 11.1992 Apes and Monkeys

[4]     From:   Werner Broennimann <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 18:42:58 +0000
        Subj:   SHK 11.1992: Apes and Monkeys

[5]     From:   John Jowett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 1 Nov 2000 12:53:45 GMT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1992 Apes and Monkeys


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 12:05:44 -0500
Subject: 11.1992 Apes and Monkeys
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1992 Apes and Monkeys

>Some time back we had a fine discussion of Shylock's daughter Jessica
>and Renaissance monkeys. Working on a related matter, I find myself
>wondering if early moderns distinguished at all between apes and
>monkeys. Part of the issue is construing the mysterious proverb that old
>maids must "lead apes in hell." Can anyone help?

It looks at first glance through OED as though "monkey" might have
tended to be used for smaller, livelier animals, like marmosets (often
linked with monkey for alliterative effect). The word was a comparative
newcomer (about 1500?) to the lexicon of primates. There may have been
some consciousness of it grammatically diminutive character, as there is
also for "marmoset" (which predates it).  Mandeville refers to
"Babewynes, Apes, Marmesettes, and othere dyverse bestes". By 1699
however, a distinction among "monkey, ape and man" is clearly implied by
the title of Tyson's "Orang-Outang, sive Homo Sylvestris: or, the
Anatomy of a Pygmie, Compared with that of a Monkey, an Ape, and a
Man."  Whether England earlier than that would ever have seen what we
now call a "great ape" I do not know.  London Magazine in 1738 expresses
surprise at a recently arrived "Chimpanze" (the word is apparently
Angolan) as though the animal was unknown before, and a writer in 1799
is clearly unfamiliar with the word "Gorilla".  In 1770 a magazine
writer is still describing a gibbon as a monkey.

There would surely be illustrations of the proverb about that might
help.

Tom

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 18:06:24 GMT
Subject: 11.1992 Apes and Monkeys
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1992 Apes and Monkeys

On apes and monkeys - my memory is that Topsell, History of Four-Footed
Beasts, goes into some detail about different varieties of monkey - but
I can't remember if the 'ape-monkey' distinction is important.

David Lindley

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jim Lake <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 12:08:58 -0600
Subject: 11.1992 Apes and Monkeys
Comment:        RE: SHK 11.1992 Apes and Monkeys

H. W. Janson's Apes and Ape Lore in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance
deals with this sort of thing.

Jim Lake

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Werner Broennimann <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 18:42:58 +0000
Subject: Apes and Monkeys
Comment:        SHK 11.1992: Apes and Monkeys

Both MND 2.1.181 ("On meddling monkey or on busy ape") and Cymb. 1.6.39
where ape and monkey co-occur do not really seem to differentiate
between the two.  Marvin Spevack (A Shakespeare Thesaurus) lists these
synonyms: ape, apish, babion, baboon, dog-ape, jackanapes, John ape,
marmoset, monkey.  Somehow it feels good to sound out these words.
Shakespeare's England (which I still find a real treasure trove), vol.
1, p. 486 has this information: "What is loosely called the simian group
of animals is represented by the ape, the monkey, the baboon, and the
marmoset.  'Ape' was still the generic name; 'monkey' was a word of
comparatively recent introduction; the first is about twice as frequent
as the second in Shakespeare's works, but they are employed without any
discernible difference of meaning.  In a few passages there seems to be
some sort of implication that the monkey was simply a degraded form of
man; as [in Timon 1.1.260]."

Werner Br


Re: Lear Editions

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2002  Wednesday, 31 October 2000.

[1]     From:   Evelyn Gajowski <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 08:35:27 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1991 Lear Editions

[2]     From:   Michael Friedman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 16:51:57 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1991 Lear Editions

[3]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 12:58:18 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1991 Lear Editions

[4]     From:   Drew Whitehead <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 01 Nov 2000 08:27:09 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1991 Lear Editions

[5]     From:   Sarah Werner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 20:08:15 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1991 Lear Editions

[6]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 20:54:38 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1991 Lear Editions

[7]     From:   Toby Malone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 1 Nov 2000 11:40:35 +0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1991 Lear Editions


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Evelyn Gajowski <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 08:35:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 11.1991 Lear Editions
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1991 Lear Editions

To Andrew Lobo:

I suggest that you check out Michael Warren's work, including *The
Complete* King Lear, *1608-1623* (U California P, 1989) and *The
Parallel* King Lear, *1608-1623* (U California P, 1989).

Regards,
Evelyn Gajowski

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Friedman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 16:51:57 -0500
Subject: 11.1991 Lear Editions
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1991 Lear Editions

See Michael Warren's The Parallel King Lear 1608-1623. Berkeley: U of
California P, 1989.

Michael D. Friedman
University of Scranton
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 12:58:18 -0800
Subject: 11.1991 Lear Editions
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1991 Lear Editions

> Is anyone aware of a single edition of King Lear that contains both the
> quarto and the folio versions?  ...a single publication of King Lear with
> the two versions distinctly presented.

Andrew, the one I know is The Parallel King Lear, 1608-1623 by Michael
Warren.  You have the complimentary texts side by side on the page.  It
can be tricky to find, but a first class library should have it.  If you
are very lucky, as I was, you'll find a review copy at a second hand
bookstore.

All the best,
Mike Jensen

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Drew Whitehead <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 01 Nov 2000 08:27:09 +1000
Subject: 11.1991 Lear Editions
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1991 Lear Editions

Andrew,

Both versions of Lear, as well as a conflated version, can be found in
the Norton.  Penguin also publishing both together in the Pelican
Shakespeare.  http://www.penguinputnam.com/pelican/index.htm

And, of course, they can also be found on-line
http://castle.uvic.ca/shakespeare/Annex/DraftTxt/alpha.html

Drew Whitehead

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sarah Werner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 20:08:15 -0500
Subject: 11.1991 Lear Editions
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1991 Lear Editions

Rene Weis edited a parallel text Lear for Longman Annotated Texts
(London and New York, 1993).

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 20:54:38 -0500
Subject: 11.1991 Lear Editions
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1991 Lear Editions

Andrew Lobo asks:

>Is anyone aware of a single edition of King Lear that contains both the
>quarto and the folio versions?

Yes, there is one, and I think it's the Pelican.  I use the Norton
Shakespeare for Lear because Greenblatt et al. have placed the Q version
(History) on the left hand page, and the F version (Tragedy) on the
right.  For comparative discussions of the texts, the Norton is the way
to go.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Toby Malone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 1 Nov 2000 11:40:35 +0800
Subject: 11.1991 Lear Editions
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1991 Lear Editions

Rene Weis' Parallel Text Edition of Lear is very good - published by
Longman in 1993. This sets out the Q and F texts side by side for
comparison.

Cheers.
Toby

Re: Guilio Romano

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2003  Wednesday, 31 October 2000.

[1]     From:   Ed Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 11:44:53 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Julio Romano

[2]     From:   Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 10:57:57 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1993 Re: Guilio Romano

[3]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 09:28:55 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1993 Re: Guilio Romano

[4]     From:   Fran Barasch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 1 Nov 2000 08:40:28 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1993 Re: Guilio Romano


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 11:44:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Julio Romano

By the by, Julio Romano was not only a sculptor but, as I remember, a
famous (infamous?) pornographer.

--Ed Taft

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 10:57:57 -0600
Subject: 11.1993 Re: Guilio Romano
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1993 Re: Guilio Romano

Dennis:

>You wrote: In "The Winter's Tale", all those Catholic fragments (miraculous
>statues etc.) are reanimated like old clothes on a scarecrow that turns
>out to be Fred Astaire.  Or better Catholicism is Astaire's artificial
>leg which he somehow makes into something natural.

As a matter of historical accuracy, the Scarecrow was Ray Bolger, not
Fred Astaire, another superb hoofer though not quite so great as
Astaire.

There is, it suddenly occurs to me, a bizarre suggestion of the
crucifixion and resurrection in the hanged scarecrow coming down off its
cross to join the virgin on her trip to the wonderful land. I leave
further development of this idea to another kind of critic.

(I did not, I hasten to add, write the preceding under the influence of
anything except my trimesterly office-cleaning frenzy. It reads a little
like a parody of one or another of our listers, but I hestitate to
specify whom since it arose unconsciously.)

With all blessings of All Hallow's Eve,
don

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 09:28:55 -0800
Subject: 11.1993 Re: Guilio Romano
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1993 Re: Guilio Romano

I'll have to take a look at Lupton's book, since your description of it
is so intriguing.

> Perhaps
> there is the question:  does the end of "The Winter's Tale" really
> 'deflate', as Lupton argues, the old Catholic iconography?

As I said, I have not read Lupton's argument, but would tend to doubt
it.  The ending of the Winter's Tale seems to precisely overturn the
stigma attaching to idols, and, by a process of extension to
representative art generally, in the Reformation--that they are not
alive, that they have eyes and see not, mouths and speak not, etc.
Normally, we see characters trapped within their condition as artworks,
but in this case, a statue comes to life.  A different aesthetic from
that of iconoclasm seems to be proposed in this instance.

Cheers,
Se


Re: Fops

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2001  Wednesday, 31 October 2000.

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 08:24:22 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 11.1987 Re: Fops

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 08:34:34 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1987 Re: Fops


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 31 Oct 2000 08:24:22 -0800
Subject: Re: Fops
Comment:        SHK 11.1987 Re: Fops

First I apologize for replying late.  I needed to get the book in the
same place as the post.  I'm sure Werner Br


Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.