2001

Re: Playwrights and Pamphleteers

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0207  Tuesday, 30 January 2001

From:           Stephanie Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 26 Jan 2001 13:13:01 +0000
Subject: 12.0186 Playwrights and Pamphleteers
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0186 Playwrights and Pamphleteers


>Someone who cares might argue that the Beatles weren't exactly
>disgraceful, and neither was John Bale.

You're right. I overstated the case. Although the Beatles endured their
portion of scorn before they won over their immense audience, and Bale
was so controversial that despite his stature as grand old man of the
English reformation, he had a hard time getting a job once it actually
took off.

>By the way, in addition to Shaw the list of significant playwrights who
>achieved noteworthy success on the basis of very modest formal
>educations includes Lope da Vega and Moliere.  What Keats and Dickens
>might have done had they been steered toward drama rather than poetry
>and fiction at the beginning of their careers has long seemed to me a
>beguiling speculation.

De Vega apprenticed to a very erudite Church official in his early
years, if memory serves, and Moliere attended the best Jesuit academy in
Paris before he turned actor. For such brilliant writers, these
backgrounds would certainly be sufficient to explain the kind of works
they wrote.

Shakespeare was writing when drama was King, Keats came of age when it
was poetry, and Dickens when it was the novel. Dickens was very drawn to
the theater. Perhaps someone else will recall if he actually wrote any
plays.

Stephanie Hughes

Re: Field Query

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0206  Tuesday, 30 January 2001

From:           David Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 26 Jan 2001 20:41:23 -0600
Subject: 12.0193 Field Query
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0193 Field Query

Mike Jensen wrote:

>Is Field's *Amends for Ladies* in print?  I'd be happy to find it in an
>anthology if it is available in an anthology.  If available in more than
>one edition, do you recommend one over another?  Why?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Mike Jensen

I don't know that it's in print, but I think the standard edition is
still the one in William Peery's *The Plays of Nathan Field* (1950).  It
has a full collation of six copies of Q1, plus good explanatory notes.
I have a copy of this volume on my shelf if you have any specific
questions that can be answered by e-mail, and I'm guessing that most
large research libraries would also have a copy.

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

Re: Female Othello

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0204  Tuesday, 30 January 2001

From:           Evelyn Gajowski <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 26 Jan 2001 12:13:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 12.0185 Re: Female Othello
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0185 Re: Female Othello

To Geralyn Horton:

The production of the Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival's *Hamlet* at SAA
in Cleveland in Mar. 1998 cast a female actor as a female Hamlet.  This
decision had several interesting implications -- for one, Polonius's
making the Hamlet/Ophlelia relationship taboo was rendered as homophobic
in motivation.

Evelyn Gajowski
University of Nevada, Las Vegas

The Number 20

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0205  Tuesday, 30 January 2001

From:           Susan C Oldrieve <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 26 Jan 2001 13:47:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        The Number 20

One of my students has found an unusual number of incidences of the
number 20 in Shakespeare's works.

Can anyone tell me what the significance of that number might be in
Pythagorean number theory or any other numerological system that
Shakespeare might have been familiar with?

Thanks!

Susan Oldrieve
Baldwin-Wallace College

Re: Johnson's Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0203  Tuesday, 30 January 2001

From:           Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 26 Jan 2001 14:14:41 EST
Subject: 12.0190 Re: Johnson's Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0190 Re: Johnson's Shakespeare

I have been holding back on this thread due to the wider knowledge of
those better able to refute the drab protestations at modernity espoused
by T. Hawkes. However perhaps this from Johnson might at least remind
those less zealous than myself of the wider subtlety of Dr. Johnson on
authorship and S's art:

From mere inferiority nothing can be inferred; in the productions of wit
there will be inequality. Sometimes judgement will err, and sometimes
the matter itself will defeat the artist. Of every author's works one
will be the best, and one will be the worst. The colours are not equally
pleasing, not the attitudes equally graceful, in all the pictures of
Titian or Reynolds.

This perhaps could act as advice to us all.

Yours,
Marcus.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.