2000

WordCruncher Surfaces Again

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1616  Wednesday, 30 August 2000.

From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Aug 2000 08:46:21 -0400
Subject:        Fwd: 14.0202 WordCruncher Surfaces Again

I received the message below from Humanist and am forwarding it to
follow-up on the request for information regarding WordCruncher and the
electronic Riverside Shakespeare.

               Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 14, No. 202.
       Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
               <http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
              <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>

         Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:14:03 +0100
         From: Willard McCarty <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
         Subject: Fwd: Update on the New WordCruncher and Document
Explorer

It seems that WordCruncher has surfaced again. Although the following is
an advert, I circulate it here because interest has been expressed in
this text-analysis program on several occasions within the last few
years. Has anyone outside of the company actually used the New
WordCruncher and Document Explorer?

WM

The new advances in WordCruncher and Document Explorer give you the
document exploring and statistical discovery tools you need to handle
megabyte and gigabyte files with ease, create a concordance in seconds,
and do advanced string searching in any foreign character font
(including Russian, Chinese, and Arabic).  The new interface design
tools give you the power to create an exciting interface for your
documents with intra-, inter-, and external executable links.  Exciting
and revolutionary tools for both document study and document
presentation!

 Please note these new exciting features of WordCruncher and Document
Explorer:

 Program Components:
      Developer
      Indexer
      Image Manager
      Viewer

 Program Tools:
      Search Tools
      Analytical Tools
      Design Tools
      Linking Tools
      Foreign Font Tools


 Search Tools - Find the information you want and explore with new
searching technology.
      --Simple Word Search
           Double click on word to find all instances
           WordWheel List (alphabetical list of all words in text)
           Type word in Search Manager

      --Advanced and Complex Word Search
           Contextual Search
           Sub-string Searching
           Advanced Wildcards
           Language Selection Search
           Search Reference Manager

      --Library Word Search
           Word or String Search across Library Documents

 Analytical Tools -- Learn what it means to really explore a document
and discover the relationships within.
       Frequency Distribution of Word or String Search
       Neighborhood (Cross Correlation) Distribution
       Concordance Creation and Statistical Analysis
       Cross Reference Tools


Design Tools - Create a full graphical interface for your documents with
buttons, hot-words, graphical hot spots, and tools for driving video,
audio, Internet browsers, and external executable files.
       Graphical Interface Manager
       Text Management
       Foreign Font Management
       File Intra- and Inter- Links
       Global (Library) Environment and Interface Controls
       Document Environment and Interface Controls
       Scrolling Controls
       Zooming and Font Controls
       Screen Synchronicity and Search Correlation


 Linking Tools -- Guide users with intra-,  inter-, and external
executable  links.
       Graphical Links
       Textual Links
       Internet Links
       Audio Links
       Video Links
       E-mail Links
       Internal Cross References
       External Cross References
       Graphical Hyperlinks
       External Task Hyperlinks


 Foreign Font Tools
       Foreign Character/Font Graphical and Textual Interface Capable
       Unicode and Two-byte Font Capable (i.e. Chinese, Japanese)
       Search Tools, Analytical Tools, and Linking Tools - all foreign
font
 capable

  For more information, please contact Hamilton-Locke.

  Hamilton-Locke, Inc.
 1902 N. Canyon Rd, Ste. 120
 Provo, Utah 84604
 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 801.356.3512 V
 801.226.2971 F

Electronic Sources

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1615  Wednesday, 30 August 2000.

From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Aug 2000 15:04:25 +0100
Subject: 11.1592 Electronic Sources
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1592 Electronic Sources

Micharl Harrawood writes

>My school, Florida Atlantic University, is about to acquire the EEBO
>database from Bell & Howell, I think on a trial basis.
>
>I am wondering whether anybody out there has used this or any of the
>other online databases (such as Chadwick Healy) in the classroom.  I
>would be interested in any advice, war stories, or anything helpful
>regarding the use of these sources in teaching.

Early English Books Online (EEBO) will be reviewed in the next, or next
but one, issue of Early Modern Literary Studies
(purl.oclc.org/emls/emlshome.html). For those who haven't heard of EEBO,
it's an Internet-delivered equivalent of the collection of microfilms
called Early English Books sold by University Microfilms International
which show every page of an example of each item listed in the Pollard +
Redgrave and Wing Short Title Catalogues.  Bell and Howell digitized the
films at 200dpi with 1 bit per pixel and deliver them via a browser
plug-in called DejaVu.

I would be surprised if anyone were using EEBO in teaching, it being
essentially a scholarly research tool.

I have used Chadwyck-Healey's Literature Online (LION) database in
advanced undergraduate courses on Renaissance Comedy and on Research
Methods. Chadwyck-Healey once provided free training for my
undergraduates, most of whom remained blissfully unaware that they were
being given a remarkable opportunity to slice effectively the entire
pre-C20 literary canon any way they liked.  One student became highly
motivated when her search for "Hamlet" brought her to the parody
("'Sfoot, Hamlet, are you mad?") in Chapman, Jonson and Marston's
"Eastward Ho!"

A LION homework exercise that worked well was to have the students find
all occurrences of the character name "Rafe" in plays between 1580 and
1600, to read a little around the hit and report back to the group on
what each Rafe does. Other groups did the same for the names Dick(e),
Robin, Venus, Neptune, and Cupid. (The set text was Lyly's "Gallathea".)
From this the students gained a sense of the expectations generated by
certain characters' names. Another successful task was reporting on
words which frequently appear in collocation with "jew" in literature of
the period, as background to Marlowe's "Jew of Malta".

Gabriel Egan

Re: Cymbeline

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1613  Wednesday, 30 August 2000.

[1]     From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 29 Aug 2000 16:18:33 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1605 Re: Cymbeline

[2]     From:   Ros King <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 30 Aug 2000 07:50:50 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1595 Re: Cymbeline


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 29 Aug 2000 16:18:33 -0400
Subject: 11.1605 Re: Cymbeline
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1605 Re: Cymbeline

There seems to me to have been a fashion for densely layered work across
the English arts around 1610: 40-voice polyphony; thick figuration and
highly complex syntax in Donne, Browne, Andrewes, Webster; elaborate
emblems in titlepages and masques and emblem books and ceremonial
gateways.  Both the peculiar compression of language and the
extraordinary complexity of plot and motive in *Cymbeline* seem to me to
gibe gently at this fashion even while investigating its possibilities.

Dave Evett

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ros King <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Aug 2000 07:50:50 EDT
Subject: 11.1595 Re: Cymbeline
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1595 Re: Cymbeline

I was surprised to read Terence Hawkes's recent postings on the language
of Cymbeline as I would have thought that he would have been one of the
first to point out that writing can only be considered good (or as I
said 'sharp' and 'polished') in so far as it can be seen to be fitting
for its time, place and purpose. This is a basic principle of dramatic
writing since characters need to be given differentiated registers. It
is demanded, for instance, by Horace and has always been the feature
that has most frightened those who disapprove of the theatre.

Twelve or fifteen years ago, when I first looked at the play seriously,
I too became very frustrated with it. Whereas the linguistic
difficulties of the Winter's Tale reveal greater subtlety and depth of
interest as they are unravelled, one can spend hours deconstructing
Cymbeline and be apparently no further forward. I noticed that most
editors gave up the task of original annotation by the end of Act 2 and
resorted to reproducing the Variorum notes.

Back in April this year, however, preparing a new edition specially for
the production in Santa Cruz, I  came to form a very different opinion
of the play. I think there are two things that have hampered our ability
to read it.  Firstly the  Folio punctuation, largely reproduced in the
current Arden edition (Nosworthy,1955), obeys sixteenth century
conventions of orthography and has made the language appear cumbersome
to modern eyes. Secondly the confusion as to the play's genre has meant
that we have largely mistaken its tone. Replace the punctuation with
something more sensitive to the *flow* of the sense, however, and the
huge incidence of split lines creates some  of the most immediate and
conversational language in all Shakespeare's plays. As Geralyn Horton
pointed out, Cymbeline contains comparatively few difficult or archaic
words ('few', Terry, not 'none'!), and its syntactical difficulties are,
I now think, dramaturgical clues - aids rather than barriers to
understanding.

The 'exposition' of the opening scene of the play does indeed, as Terry
says, tell us the story so far, and as Ed Pixley suggests, the passages
under discussion conjure up the character 'courtier' whose delicate
trade demands circuitous talk. More than that though, the precise choice
of vocabulary creates a sense of the crushing, confined containment of
Cymbeline's court, a place that destroys the humanity of everybody in it
- particularly the children brought up there. Because of that
upbringing, even Imogen, undoubtedly the 'best' thing in the play can
sometimes appear a somewhat spoilt and argumentative brat, while
Posthumus's head, though more intelligent than Cloten's, is as like it
in its misogyny as their two bodies are inter-changeable.

So let me start another hare. Far from being a 'romance' about the
purity of noble blood, Cymbeline is a bitterly funny farce about the
corruption of absolute courts and the sad waste of human potential that
they cause. It belongs to that peculiarly English genre:  politically
engaged tragi-comedy, w hose origins can be traced to Richard Edwards's
influential school play Damon and Pythias (probably written for court
performance in1564) and which extends forwards through nineteenth
century burlesque to the plays of Joe Orten and TV shows like Monty
Python. The problem is that our critical historical understanding of
tragi-comedy has been largely based on the treatise that Guarini wrote
to defend his pastoral play, The Faithful Shepherd (1589), which has
little relevance to anything except imitations of Guarini (e.g.
Fletcher's Faithful Shepherdess).

So, yes. The play's writing is 'polished' because while its metrics are
extraordinarily regular its prosody, in performance at least, creates a
range of registers from the courtier's guarded convolutions to a
simulation of informal, spontaneous natural conversation. It is 'sharp'
because it is funny and satirical and can turn on the instant to
intense, painful sadness, and because Shakespeare has the confident
ability to keep half a dozen plot lines in continuous motion - a
technical, theatrical masterpiece.

Best,
Ros

Limerick Contest

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1614  Wednesday, 30 August 2000.

From:           Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 29 Aug 2000 15:20:53 -0400
Subject:        Limerick Contest

Poor Yorick would like to announce a limerick contest, open to members
of the SHAKSPER-L listserv, their students, friends and family.

To enter, you must write an original limerick related to Titus
Andronicus, either the play itself or the film version by Julie Taymor.
Send your limerick to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

The best limerick will receive a $20.00 (Canadian) gift certificate
redeemable through the Poor Yorick Shakespeare Multimedia Catalogue and
a Titus poster.

The number of runners up will be determined by the number of worthy
applications we receive, and all runners up will receive a Titus poster
(we have a total of 5 to give away).

The posters are theatrical size, and show Anthony Hopkins' helmeted
face, plastered with blue paint/clay.

The contest closes on September 30.  Winners will be announced the
following week and the winning limericks posted on SHAKSPER, with
Hardy's permission.

Tanya Gough
Poor Yorick Shakespeare Multimedia Catalogue
www.bardcentral.com

Re: Women's Roles

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1612  Wednesday, 30 August 2000.

From:           David Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 29 Aug 2000 23:37:51 -0600
Subject: 11.1607 Re: Stratford Festival
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1607 Re: Stratford Festival

HR Greenberg wrote:

>I have just seen the ELIZABETH REX at Stratford, and -- not being a
>Shakespearean scholar -- wondered if a central issue in the play had
>been discussed in academia at any length. Key character without
>revealing much more is an adult female impersonator a la the female
>impersonators of Kabuki drama. Assumption being that an adolescent boy
>wouldn't have the reach, maturity, et cetera, to take on one of
>Shakespeare's strong, older women -- Lady Macbeth, Tamora, Titania, so
>forth. If there's been any significant scholarship on this subject, I
>would greatly appreciate references.

We've discussed this subject on this list several times, most recently
in May of this year.  Others have expressed similar doubts about the
ability of a teenage boy apprentice to act the great female roles of
Shakespeare, Webster, and so on.  The most extensive expression of this
doubt that I'm aware of is a chapter in James Forse's 1993 book *Art
Imitates Business*, in which Forse argues that such roles as Cleopatra
and Lady Macbeth must have been played by adult sharers.  However, he
bases this conclusion not on any evidence to speak of, but on his
notions of what would have made sense, especially economic sense, to an
Elizabethan acting troupe.  Alas, any historian can tell you that people
in the past did not always act according to our 21st-century notions of
"common sense".  As I have argued here several times already, all the
evidence we have shows that essentially all female roles, including the
principal ones, were acted by teenage boys on the pre-Restoration
English stage.  There are a couple of apparent instances of sharers
acting very minor female roles (one with five lines, one with no lines
at all), but even these are dubious for various reasons.  The
apprentices whose ages we can determine were between 13 and 19 when they
performed female roles, with the larger roles tending to go to older
boys in their late teens.  These boys transitioned to male roles around
the ages of 17-19.  I have not found any definite instance of a boy
actor older than 19, but some of the more effeminate ones might have
lasted into their early 20s.

There's quite a bit of evidence about the ability of these "boy" actors,
but probably the best testimony comes from the Restoration.  When the
theaters first reopened, boys still acted female parts, and for a while
boys and women apparently coexisted on the stage.  The most famous of
these boys was Edward Kynaston, who was born on April 20, 1643, and thus
17 years old when the theaters reopened.  Samuel Pepys saw Kynaston play
the Duke's Sister in *The Loyal Subject* at the Cockpit on August 18,
1660, and wrote in his diary that Kynaston (age 17) "made the loveliest
lady that ever I saw in my life, only her voice not very good." John
Downes, bookkeeper for Sir William Davenant's Restoration company for
many years, wrote the following about Kynaston:

"Mr. Kynaston acted Arthiope, in the Unfortunate Lovers; the Princess in
the Mad Lover; Aglaura; Ismenia, in the Maid in the Mill; and several
other women's parts; he being then very young made a complete female
stage beauty, performing his parts so well, especially Arthiope and
Aglaura, being parts greatly moving compassion and pity; that it has
since been disputable among the judicious, whether any woman that
succeeded him so sensibly touched the audience as he."

I'm currently writing all this up for publication, but for a good brief
summary of the evidence, see G. E. Bentley, *The Profession of Player in
Shakespeare's Time* (1984), pp. 113-146.

Dave Kathman
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.