2001

Re: Globe Editions

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2314  Wednesday, 10 October 2001

From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 8 Oct 2001 21:50:28 +0100
Subject: 12.2302 Re: Globe Editions
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2302 Re: Globe Editions

Graham Hall asks of the Globe Quartos

> are they being printed on the Globe's Lubbock
> reconstructed press?

No. But that replica common press does work and I use it to teach
bibliography to students of the Globe/King's College London "MA
Shakespearean Studies". Details at www.shakespearesglobe.com and
www.kcl.ac.uk.

Gabriel Egan
Globe Education

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Date of Composition of _Othello_

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2313  Wednesday, 10 October 2001

[1]     From:   David Crosby <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 8 Oct 2001 12:47:39 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 12.2307 Date of Composition of _Othello_

[2]     From:   Steve Sohmer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 9 Oct 2001 11:17:26 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2307 Date of Composition of _Othello_

[3]     From:   John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Oct 2001 12:12:26 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 12.2307 Date of Composition of _Othello_


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Crosby <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 8 Oct 2001 12:47:39 -0500
Subject: 12.2307 Date of Composition of _Othello_
Comment:        RE: SHK 12.2307 Date of Composition of _Othello_

David Bevington, in his 1988 introduction to the Bantam edition, asserts
that Othello was "written seemingly about the time of its performance at
court by the King's men...on November 1, 1604...."

Stanley Wells, in his 1986 introduction to the Oxford Shakespeare
Complete Works, cites the same later limit and mentions that
"information about the Turkish invasion of Cypress appears to derive
from Richard Knolles's _History of the Turks_, published no earlier than
30 September 1603, so Shakespeare probably completed his play some time
between that date and the summer of 1604."

Presumably those who argue for an earlier date dispute the allusions to
Knolles or consider them later interpolations into a play that was
already complete before September 1603. They may also cite apparent
echoes of _Othello_ in the "bad" quarto of Hamlet published in 1603.

Best,
David Crosby

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Steve Sohmer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 9 Oct 2001 11:17:26 EDT
Subject: 12.2307 Date of Composition of _Othello_
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2307 Date of Composition of _Othello_

1603. Next?

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Oct 2001 12:12:26 +0100
Subject: 12.2307 Date of Composition of _Othello_
Comment:        RE: SHK 12.2307 Date of Composition of _Othello_

Ernst Honigmann is a brilliant scholar who stands like a colossus over
Shakespearean studies.  Unfortunately, some of his brilliant insights
have caused more chaos over the years than the effusions of more
pedestrian minds.  Two instances which spring to mind are the early
dating of "King John" (before The Troublesome Reign) and the Lancastrian
hypothesis.  The early dating of "Othello" seems destined to join that
group.

The problem of "Othello" is this.  It is widely accepted that the Q text
derives from Shakespeare's "foul papers".  There is similar agreement
that the F text derives from an edited "fair copy", presumably by
Shakespeare himself.  Now, the Willow Song is present in F but not in
Q.  It has "obviously" been cut.  There are several possible solutions
to this, but Honigmann's is that during the preparation of the play the
voice of the boy due to play Desdemona broke, and Shakespeare cut the
song, marking his cut (along with others) in the foul papers.  Honigmann
suggests that Shakespeare was writing "Twelfth Night" at the same time,
and re-assigned the songs there from Viola to Feste (as the same boy was
due to play Viola).  This means that the date of composition of
"Othello" needs to be moved back to that of "Twelfth Night", which in
turn can only be stretched to 1602...

There are, of course, several alternative explanations which could seem
to be more plausible.  Our own Pervez Rizvi has argued that it is, in
fact, the F text which derives from the foul papers, and the Q text is
the edited text, with the Q cuts as, well, cuts.  Another explanation,
which I associate in my mind with Gary Taylor, although it may not be
his, is that the Willow Song is a later interpolation (by Middleton?).
After all, the song is probably not by Shakespeare, and in any case this
is not Verdi...  The re-assignment of the "Twelfth Night" songs may be
due to the presence of Robert Armin, rather than the absence of a boy
singer.

The upshot of all this is that there are multiple explanations for the
problems that Honigmann's solution is supposed to help, and it in fact
causes more problems than it solves!

John Briggs

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: "Shakespeare's Hidden Lesbians"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2311  Wednesday, 10 October 2001

[1]     From:   Thomas Larque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 8 Oct 2001 15:40:01 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2301 Re: "Shakespeare's Hidden Lesbians"

[2]     From:   Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 08 Oct 2001 14:40:46 -0400
        Subj:   Nests

[3]     From:   Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 08 Oct 2001 15:27:50 -0400
        Subj:   Shakespeare's Hidden Lesbians

[4]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 9 Oct 2001 07:38:25 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2301 Re: "Shakespeare's Hidden Lesbians"

[5]     From:   Karen Peterson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 9 Oct 2001 03:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2301 Re: "Shakespeare's Hidden Lesbians"


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Larque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 8 Oct 2001 15:40:01 +0100
Subject: 12.2301 Re: "Shakespeare's Hidden Lesbians"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2301 Re: "Shakespeare's Hidden Lesbians"

> I'd be happy to make more specific arguments concerning >Desdemona/Emilia
> and Two Noble Kinsmen (MoV having been done to death on this list
> several times) should anyone want them.  I also can dig out a
> bibliography of sorts on homoeroticism in Shakespeare if I can access
> the hard drive of that computer.

Thanks to Mari Bonomi for the offer.  I hope that she will give us both
her own opinions on the subject and her bibliography (particularly on
lesbianism), both of which I would find useful and interesting.

Has the list discussed lesbianism in "Merchant of Venice" or only male
homosexuality between Bassanio and Antonio (Jankowski apparently
believes that Portia and Nerissa are likely to be in love)?

Thanks to everyone who has suggested reading material on supposed
Shakespearean lesbianism both on list and privately.  Plenty of leads
worth following there.

If anybody has any further suggestions for reading about Shakespearean
lesbian theories, particularly regarding Emilia in "Two Noble Kinsmen"
and the other passionate childhood relationships between Shakespeare's
women then I would be very grateful to hear them.

Thomas Larque.

"Shakespeare and His Critics"
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/thomas_larque

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 08 Oct 2001 14:40:46 -0400
Subject:        Nests

While there does not seem to be a Renaissance notion of a homosexual
subjectivity, I have wondered about what could be the sociological
implications for the use of "nests" in the following references:

Chaucer: In the Summoner's Prologue, the summoner claims a "nest of
freres" inhabits "Sathanas' ers."

Middleton (1): In the prose satire The Black Book, Lawrence Lucifer
discovers a "nest of gallants" who "for the natural parts that are in
them, are maintained by their drawn-work dames and their embroidered
mistresses--[and they] keep at every heel a man, beside a French lacquey
(a great boy with a beard) and an English page, which fills up the place
of an ingle."

Middleton (2): In another prose satire The Ant and the Nightingale, the
country youth is advised, "if his humour so serve him, to call in at the
Blackfriars, where he should see a nest of boys able to ravish a man."

Middleton (3): In The Roaring Girl, Jack Dapper's own father claims,
"When his purse jingles,/ Roaring boys follow at's tail, fencers, and
ningles--/ Beasts Adam ne'er gave name to." Dapper is notable for liking
feathers, causing another character to remark, "Look you, by my faith,
the fool has feathered his nest well."

Sidney: In Arcadia, Basilius asks Pyrocles (who is disguised as an
Amazon), "You praise so greatly . . . your country that I must needs
desireto know what the nest is out of which such birds do fly."
Pyrocles' cross-dressing is for the purpose of gaining access to romance
Philoclea, Basilius's daughter, but Basilius has become infatuated with
the disguised Pyrocles.

Does anyone know of other related uses of "nest"? And has there been any
research published on such usages?

Jack Heller

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 08 Oct 2001 15:27:50 -0400
Subject:        Shakespeare's Hidden Lesbians

Skip Nicholson writes:

> Homosexuality involved what people did but not who or
> what they were.

Maybe, maybe not. It's really a question of nature / nurture. If you
believe that sexuality is constructed and dependent on culture, then
Nicholson may be right. But if you believe that sexuality is in the
genes, then he may not be right.

The real kicker is that biologists now think that the relative influence
of nature and nurture is about 50%! In other words, both genes and
culture play major roles.  If so, we may not be able to solve this
problem even when the human genome is fully mapped and its functions
wholly understood.

--Ed Taft

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 9 Oct 2001 07:38:25 +0100
Subject: 12.2301 Re: "Shakespeare's Hidden Lesbians"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2301 Re: "Shakespeare's Hidden Lesbians"

> From:           Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

> (MoV having been done to death on this list several times)

Not to rehash the Merchant once more, but because it's impossible to
avoid it in the (contested) area of Shakespeare's possible homoeroticism
...

It seems to me that the one Shakespeare play which simply cannot be read
outside this context is _Twelfth Night_.

The situation set up between Sebastian and Antonio, the language used by
Antonio in his soliloquy after he first takes leave of Sebastian
(concluding "But come what may, I do adore thee so / that danger shall
seem sport, and I will go." -- 2.1.41-42 -- cf. Antonio's language in
3.3 -- going well beyond the normal idioms of male social friendship),
the initial encounter of the audience with Sebastian through the prism
of his (dressed-as-a-man identical twin) sister (that obscure and
anomalous object of desire) Viola/Caesario, female, eunuch, and
adolescent male (in presentational sequence) ...

All this (for me) pushes _Twelfth Night_ from having a possible
gender-twisted reading into having an incontrovertible one.  That is, I
simply find it impossible to interpret _Twelfth Night_ within the bounds
of restrictive conventional heterosexuality, whether of the 17th or the
21st centuries.

If we allow _Twelfth Night_ as a partial paradigm, we have:

An older man demonstrating more-than-conventional-for-the-times feelings
towards a younger man of a higher social class.

Further, the younger man is financially dependent on the older, and at
the end of the play, the older male (Antonio) is marginalised and
excluded (Viola marries Orsino, Sebastian marries Olivia, what happens
to Antonio?).

Which brings us (back) to _The Merchant of Venice_.  At the beginning of
MoV, Antonio is presented as the melancholy lover -- who is he in love
with?  The deponent (in this case, the play) stateth not.  Overtly.

In MoV, the Antonio (there) is involved with Bassanio, younger and of a
higher social class.

The difference, I think, is that while _Twelfth Night_ insists (almost)
on a homoerotic text around the relationship between Antonio and
Sebastian (predominantly on Antonio's part), MoV +allows+ a similar
(sub)text around the emotions of the Antonio in that play directed
towards Bassanio.

_Twelfth Night_ is written (roughly dated) 1600.  Two years before
(equally rough dating), Shakespeare had written _The Merchant of
Venice_, with yet another (or previous) Antonio presented in a relation
with a younger man of a higher social class (Bassanio) who is indebted
to him for money.  At the end of MoV, the Antonio in that play is
equally excluded or marginalised (Bassanio marries Portia, Gratiano
marries Jessica, what about Antonio?)

Add to which, cross-dressed hero(ines) -- +only+ Portia and Viola
(together with Rosalind in _AYLI_) are in a 1596-1600 time frame, with
the only other cross-dressed heroines the (much earlier) Julia in _Two
Gentlemen_ and Imogen in the (much later) _Cymbeline.

A 1598-1600 dating for MoV/TN puts them within a possible (late) dating
of the composition of the _Sonnets_, published in 1609.

Where we have, inter alia, an older man of a lower social class deeply
emotionally involved with a younger man who doesn't seem to reciprocate
his feelings to the same degree.

So we have three texts by Shakespeare, all falling within a (possible)
three-year period, all of which engage with the strong emotional
feelings of an older man of a lower social class directed towards a
younger man of a higher class.

I have to say that I'm not particularly drawn to homoerotic or
homosexual readings of Shakespeare in general, but I do think these
three texts form a special and particular case.

Robin Hamilton

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Peterson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 9 Oct 2001 03:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 12.2301 Re: "Shakespeare's Hidden Lesbians"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2301 Re: "Shakespeare's Hidden Lesbians"

> If indeed there was no heterosexual paradigm for
> Shakespeare and his
> contemporaries, how can there be activities outside
> this non-existent
> gender paradigm?

Excellent point, Bill.  Thanks for raising it.

I was guilty here of forwarding a particular piece of jargon
("heterosexual gender paradigm") without first questioning what it
really means.  Put in plainer English: can we agree that there was a
social convention of women and men marrying (or otherwise bonding) for
purposes of reproduction?  From what I've read of her work, I'm not
convinced that Jankowski would completely agree to this interpretation,
but IF one accepts Foucault's and Bray's hypothesis (thank you, Gabriel,
for reminding us of the sources for this idea) that identification of
sexual orientations did not exist in the early modern period, it seems
that we could still identify more- and less-conventional sexual and
reproductive behavior patterns.

I haven't read Cady's article yet, but I will try to (Again, thanks to
Gabriel for the reference).

Mari mentions the homoerotic threads that run through *Two Noble
Kinsmen*.  These ARE interesting, and to me at least suggest something
closer than usual to an early modern awareness of sexual orientation.
For those who are interested, the entire third scene of Act I in TNK is
worth reviewing.  The scene incorporates a quite lengthy and
appreciative description, by Hippolyta and her younger sister, Emilia,
of the friendship between Theseus and Pirithous.  Emilia compares this
friendship with her own close childhood friendship with a girl named
Flavina.  The scene concludes as follows:

Emil. ...This rehearsal...has this end,
That the true love 'tween maid and maid may be
More than in sex [dividual].
Hip.                 Y' are out of breath,
And this high-speeded pace is but to say
That you shall never (like the maid Flavina)
[reference here to Flavina's death at age eleven --
K.P.]
Love any that's call'd man.
Emil.                I am sure I shall not.
Hip.  Now alack, weak sister,
I must no more believe thee in this point
(Though in't I know thou dost believe thyself)
Than I will trust a sickly appetite,
That loathes even as it longs.  But sure, my sister,
If I were ripe for your persuasion, you
Have said enough to shake me from the arm
Of the all-noble Theseus, for whose fortunes
I will now in and kneel, with great assurance
That we, more than his Pirithous, possess
The high throne in his heart.
Emil.                I am not
Against your faith, yet I continue mine.     Exeunt.

To me, Emilia's use of "faith" to describe her opinions and feelings
(along with Hippolyta's comment "If I were ripe for your persuasion")
suggests something more global and self-defining, something reminiscent
of an acknowledgement of sexual orientation.  Of course, as Bill, Kezia,
and others have commented, seeing this may well be an example of
imposing contemporary concerns onto the text.  But still...?  What do
you all think?

Cheers,
Karen

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Sir Toby

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2312  Wednesday, 10 October 2001

[1]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 08 Oct 2001 13:38:16 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2303 Re: Sir Toby

[2]     From:   Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 08 Oct 2001 14:51:03 -0400
        Subj:   Sir Toby

[3]     From:   Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 08 Oct 2001 16:13:49 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2303 Re: Sir Toby

[4]     From:   Penny Freedman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 09 Oct 2001 10:46:11 +0100 (BST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2303 Re: Sir Toby

[5]     From:   Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 9 Oct 2001 10:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2303 Re: Sir Toby

[6]     From:   Sophie Masson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Oct 2001 07:45:59 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2303 Re: Sir Toby


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 08 Oct 2001 13:38:16 -0400
Subject: 12.2303 Re: Sir Toby
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2303 Re: Sir Toby

Don Bloom writes:

>Finally concerning Viola and Sebastian: both marry as a result of true
>love;

Viola may be motivated by true love (if literary characters can be said
to truly love), but does Sebastian truly love Olivia?  He hardly knows
her, and she most assuredly does not know him.  Olivia thinks that she's
marrying Cesario.  And, of course, until the last scene, Orsino thinks
that Cesario is really a boy, a full eunuch perhaps.  So if he loves
Viola at play's end, his love is partially "man love."

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 08 Oct 2001 14:51:03 -0400
Subject:        Sir Toby

Don Bloom seems to have a hard time following my argument: it's not "in
the text," he writes. Don, no one's argument is in the text: it's in the
inferences one makes from the text, and obviously yours are not the same
as mine -- but that's nothing new.

What is new is your assertion that my argument is false if there is no
parallel between Malvolio in 2.5 and Maria elsewhere. Well, you are
right, but pointing to a parallel that does NOT exist hardly invalidates
parallels that DO exist. You should read 1.3 and 1.5 again: in both,
Maria tries to curb the excesses of Sir Toby and Feste, respectively.
She is the Malvolio figure trying to tone it down a bit before Malvolio
himself gets involved. Thus, the parallelism is established between both
characters, not by scenes you demand but by scenes Shakespeare actually
supplies.

In truth, Maria conjures up her device for two reasons: to get back at
Malvolio, who has belittled her, and to win Sir Toby's affections. She
adores Sir Toby (see 2.3.178ff), and this is her chance to teach
Malvolio a lesson AND get the man of her dreams.

Don writes:

If Olivia loved [Malvolio] (not to mention if he loved her, rather than
her title, wealth, and body), and if he weren't such a delightful
combination of rat, toady, and bozo, he could be quite sympathetic. As
it is . . .

Finally concerning Viola and Sebastian: both marry as a result of true
love; both of are of high rank, wealth and good education though
evidently not titled nobility. My impression is that this was (at least
thought to be) perfectly acceptable in Italy

Don is partially wrong on both counts. First, Malvolio does become a
sympathetic character during the dark house scene. Sensitive readers
realize that the joke has gone too far, and Malvolio's insistence that
he is a gentleman takes on new meaning. Second, Sebastian does not marry
out of true love, but because he knows a good thing when he sees it. He
doesn't know Olivia at all, Don! He can't possibly love her, but, given
her money, position, good looks, etc., he will learn to love her (and
who wouldn't?).

I don't find your comments mean-spirited or vindictive, Don, but I do
find them narrow, doctrinaire, and wedded to outdated views of _TN_.

Cheers,
--Ed

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 08 Oct 2001 16:13:49 -0400
Subject: 12.2303 Re: Sir Toby
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2303 Re: Sir Toby

> I rather think that these marriages take place at the end of the lost
> sequel -- Love's Labours Won

Well, I don't think there was a true sequel.  It'd be in the First Folio
if there were.  I think Meres's Loves Labours Won was The Taming of the
Shrew.  In any case, I'm considering this one play.  Actually, the four
marriages at the end of a sequel would make my point, that LLL ended
with four marriages, except that they were postponed marriages.  So it
was a romantic comedy almost as much as end other romantic comedy in
which the principals vow to marry but the marriage is to come after the
events of the play.

> > > By the way, did Don Armado marry beneath himself?
> >
> > Hard to tell, but I think so, and so did Touchstone.
>
> Don Armado, for all his having come upon hard times, was still a
> knight.  Touchstone, for all his pretensions, was not a courtier but
> only a fool.  It is hard to say that a fool marries beneath himself
> when he marries a rustic clown.

Not if you believe there are many ways to marry beneath
oneself--including from city down to country.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Penny Freedman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 09 Oct 2001 10:46:11 +0100 (BST)
Subject: 12.2303 Re: Sir Toby
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2303 Re: Sir Toby

I agree with Geralyn Horton that Sir Toby might not use 'thou' to Maria
in front of Olivia, for example, but when we first see him with Maria,
at the beginning of 1.3, they are alone together. My point is simply
that if Shakespeare had wanted to suggest an intimate relationship
between them, 'thou' was an indicator he could have used. Since Sir Toby
calls her 'wench', which would usually collocate with 'thou', the choice
of 'you' seems rather deliberate.

Penny Freedman

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 9 Oct 2001 10:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 12.2303 Re: Sir Toby
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2303 Re: Sir Toby

Don Bloom writes:

> Sometimes I wonder if we're reading the same play. I
> just don't find
> most of this in the text. Where is there any
> indication that Sir Toby
> "will not marry her," as if she had been angling for
> him for some time?

Feste touches upon this in I.v. 24-6 : "If Sir Toby would leave drinking
thou wert as witty a piece of Eve's flesh as any in Illyria". The
ambiguous implication is that if Toby would just sober himself (in more
ways than one), he would realize the extent of Maria's qualities. She,
like Andrew, follows him like a spaniel dog and and is chastised by
Malvolio for standing by her man (II. iii.) Moreover, I've always felt
that Sir Toby is revealing something in the box tree scene when he says,
"I could marry this wench for this device" (II. v. 175). I think that
these lines, along with others and the imaginations of its readers and
audience, have led people to believe that their unexpected marriage at
the end is threaded throughout the play, from Maria's first scene
through the comedic subplot and announced in V. i. as another loose end
that is tied up.

Two-time Feste,
Brian Willis

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sophie Masson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Oct 2001 07:45:59 +1000
Subject: 12.2303 Re: Sir Toby
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2303 Re: Sir Toby

A side issue--but is Sir Andrew really 'dull and clean-minded'? Dull,
yes, but not necessarily the other. Just dumb. And dumber.

Sophie Masson
Author site: http://www.northnet.com.au/~smasson

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Robert Berman's Lecture

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2310  Monday, 8 October 2001

From:           Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 08 Oct 2001 09:24:32 +0000
Subject: 12.2292 Oop t'North.
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2292 Oop t'North.

>From: Takashi Kozuka
>
>Dr. Robert Berman's lecture at the Shakespeare
>Centre entitled "Shakespeare: A Warwickshire Lad -- or Partly a
>Lancashire One [...] read his essay once it is published. [...]

Thanks Takashi. It sounds interesting. Any publishing indicators such as
when and where available?

[...](At the end of his lecture he briefly
>added his analysis of John Shakespeare's "Spiritual Testament".)[...]

Did he accept that the document was genuine?

Best wishes,
Graham Hall

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.