The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1627  Thursday, 31 August 2000.

[1]     From:   David Lindley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 30 Aug 2000 20:19:18 GMT
        Subj:   Re: Elaboration (Cymbeline)

[2]     From:   Judith Matthews Craig <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 30 Aug 2000 23:01:02 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1613 Re: Cymbeline

[3]     From:   Edward Pixley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 31 Aug 2000 08:44:04 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1613 Re: Cymbeline


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Lindley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Aug 2000 20:19:18 GMT
Subject:        Re: Elaboration (Cymbeline)

It is no doubt the strong strain of the pedant in me that wishes to make
two corrections to posts on Cymbeline.

First: 40-part polyphony was not a characteristic of 1610.  I assume
that David Evett is referring to Tallis's wonderful 'Spem in alium' -
but Tallis died in 1585.  The pellucid intricacy of this work is
actually rather a long way from the fashionable Jacobean style, which,
in its imitation of Italian and French composers, aimed at much simpler
outlines.  Though it is true that in performance a good deal of
elaboration of the vocal line might be indulged in by those Dowland
called 'blind division-makers'.  The occlusion of melodic outline under
such embellishment might be a better parallel for certain aspects of
Jacobean poetic style?

Secondly, the heavy punctuation of Cymbeline is probably the reflection
of the specific scribal habits of Ralph Crane - rather than typical of
the sixteenth (or even seventeenth) centuries. (It is, nonetheless,
refreshing in the light of a recent thread on this list that Ros King
found the Folio punctuation 'got in the way', and needed to be
rethought.)

David Lindley

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judith Matthews Craig <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Aug 2000 23:01:02 -0500
Subject: 11.1613 Re: Cymbeline
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1613 Re: Cymbeline

If "Cymbeline" is a "bitterly funny farce" about the corruption of life
at court, what are we to do with the Christian subtext--the overlayering
of time sequence in Augustus' reign with Elizabethan realities, the
implicitly religious allusions, etc?

If I seem vague, I am away from my books and can't quote exactly: I am,
though, always suspicious of limiting this play to a "tragi-comedy genre
study" or a comment on corruption at court.

Judy Craig

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edward Pixley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 31 Aug 2000 08:44:04 -0400
Subject: 11.1613 Re: Cymbeline
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1613 Re: Cymbeline

Ros -

I wish I had said all that.  In fact, I wish I had even said what you
give me credit for saying -- but your experience of preparing the text
for production puts you in a specially valued position.  In addition,
however, you make your points with such grace and generosity of spirit!

Ed Pixley