2001

Re: Funeral Elegy

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2001  Thursday, 16 August 2001

[1]     From:   Vick Bennison <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 14 Aug 2001 13:47:23 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1993 Re: Funeral Elegy

[2]     From:   Richard Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 14 Aug 2001 17:15:09 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1993 Re: Funeral Elegy


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Vick Bennison <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 14 Aug 2001 13:47:23 EDT
Subject: 12.1993 Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1993 Re: Funeral Elegy

The Ford attribution makes sense in terms of the apparent biographical
content of the elegy.  Ford and William Peter were both Devonshire lads,
and Ford has the required connection with Oxford University (since
that's where William Peter was educated).  I have a question about
Ford.  What can be implied from the fact that he attended one year at
Oxford and then was admitted to Middle Temple?  Where is Middle Temple?
London is where I assumed.  Does this indicate he was doing well at
Oxford or doing poorly?  Would this represent a change in course or a
logical educational progression?

- Vick

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 14 Aug 2001 17:15:09 -0700
Subject: 12.1993 Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1993 Re: Funeral Elegy

It was Don Foster himself who gave the first clue that John Ford wrote
the Funeral Elegy.  I had read the poem and hadn't the slightest notion
of who had written it except that it couldn't possibly be Shake-speare.
This was in 1998.

Foster was searching about to find the author, and came upon a long poem
written by John Ford in 1613 - a pious, parching poem of something
called "Christ's Bloody Sweat," and Foster found that the there was much
matching up with the Funeral Elegy, written in 1612.  He compared
several lines of these two poems, including these few:

Elegy:  by seeming reason underpropped
CBS:  which life, death underprops

Elegy:  Now runs the method of this doleful song
CBS: Set then the tenor of thy doleful song

Elegy:  a rock of friendship figured in his name
CBS:  a rock of torment, which affliction bears

Elegy:  That lives encompassed in a mortal frame
CBS:  For whiles encompassed in a fleshly frame

Elegy:  Unhappy matter of a mourning style
CBS:  The happy matter of a moving style

Elegy:  So in his mischiefs is the world accurs'd:
 It picks out matter to inform the worst.
CBS:  For so is prone mortality accursed,
 As still it strives to plot and work the worst

Elegy:  But tasted of the sour-bitter scourge,
 Of torture and affliction
CBS:  Drew comfort from the sour-bitter gall,
 Of his afflictions

Foster's conclusion was that John Ford, in writing Christ's Bloody
Sweat, had the Funeral Elegy before him and was copying a few lines,
stealing off of Shakespeare, so goes his story.  It never occurred to
him that John Ford wrote both poems, something chronic in that I think.

Thereafter followed many postings about the Funeral Elegy, and for
myself at least the end of the quest for "W.S.".  The poet was John
Ford, a Devonshire neighbor of the Peter family, active in the elegiac
trade.  Shakespeare can be put nowhere in the neighborhood except for
the catch-penny suggestion that he passed that way between London and
Stratford.

_______________________________________________________________
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: Who Was Shakespeare?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2000  Thursday, 16 August 2001

[1]     From:   Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 14 Aug 2001 17:00:23 +0000
        Subj:   Rousing the dead

[2]     From:   Vick Bennison <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 14 Aug 2001 13:35:39 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1990 Re: Who Was Shakespeare?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 14 Aug 2001 17:00:23 +0000
Subject:        Rousing the dead

Daphne Pearson is perhaps too unkind to suggest that Rowse's researches
were discredited prior to his death. Some, rather than the sum, may have
been.  That he held a high opinion of himself is neither here nor there.
Playing the man rather than the ball is a dead end.

Best Wishes,
Graham Hall

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Vick Bennison <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 14 Aug 2001 13:35:39 EDT
Subject: 12.1990 Re: Who Was Shakespeare?
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1990 Re: Who Was Shakespeare?

>I think you are confusing Charlton Ogburn and the >present earl of
>Burford.  The latter is a descendant of the earl of >Oxford; Ogburn wrote
>the book referred to in earlier posts.

You are quite right, it was the current Earl who appeared in the program
and whimpered.  It may be my imagination, but I believe tears came to
his eyes.  Perhaps it was the lighting.

- Vick

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Shakespeare Bulletin Website

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1998  Thursday, 16 August 2001

From:           Eric Luhrs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 14 Aug 2001 10:35:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Shakespeare Bulletin Website

Dear SHAKSPERians,

The Shakespeare Bulletin website currently features the following
full-text articles and reviews:

        Marvin Rosenberg's "The Myth of Shakespeare's Squeaking Boy
        Actor--Or Who Played Cleopatra?"

        Frances Teague's "The Digital Tempest 2000: Staging Magic"

        Justin Shaltz's review of Timothy Findley's Elizabeth Rex

        Bernice W. Kliman's "TOFT Archive: The Betty Corwin Years"

        Jay L. Halio's review of A Dictionary of Stage Directions in
        English Drama, 1580-1642, by Alan C. Dessen and Leslie Thompson

These pieces are from the Spring 2001 issue of Shakespeare Bulletin
(19.2), which is now available in print.

Point your web browser to:

        http://www.shakespeare-bulletin.org

Best,
  Eric Luhrs

_______________________________________________________________
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: The late "displeasing play"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1999  Thursday, 16 August 2001

From:           Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 14 Aug 2001 10:18:47 -0700
Subject: 12.1965 The late "displeasing play"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1965 The late "displeasing play"

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

>At the end of 2 Henry IV, the author speaks a charming epilogue

While it's tempting to identify the prologue speaker with the author, I
don't know that there's any evidence for that.

The prologue might or might not serve as the author's "voice"; it might
equally well be a "voice" representing the company as a whole. And
Shakespeare might or might not have spoken the epilogue on stage.

Darned interesting, questions, those.

Steve

_______________________________________________________________
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: Mousetrap (was Clashing Ideals)

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1997  Thursday, 16 August 2001

[1]     From:   Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 14 Aug 2001 17:06:18 +0000
        Subj:   Uncle me no uncle

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 14 Aug 2001 10:55:52 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1985 Re: Hamlet's Clashing Ideals

[3]     From:   Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 14 Aug 2002 12:05:23 -0400
        Subj:   SHK 12.1991 Re: Hamlet's Clashing Ideals

[4]     From:   Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 15 Aug 2001 09:04:34 -0400
        Subj:   SHK 12.1991 Re: Hamlet's Clashing Ideals

[5]     From:   Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 15 Aug 2001 15:17:47 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1991 Re: Hamlet's Clashing Ideals


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 14 Aug 2001 17:06:18 +0000
Subject:        Uncle me no uncle

Shakespeare's assumptions (assuming that he held any) of what his
audience understood in the case of "cousin" may surely satisfy the
honour of  Don Bloom and Brian Haylett both . It's all relative.

Best Wishes,
Graham Hall

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 14 Aug 2001 10:55:52 -0700
Subject: 12.1985 Re: Hamlet's Clashing Ideals
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1985 Re: Hamlet's Clashing Ideals

To add to what is becoming a chorus (or is it a troop of criers?) of
respondents to Graham Bradshaw, I'd like to point out that the following
strikes me as overtaxing the realism of the Elizabethan stage:

>Hence my stage-oriented question, some weeks ago. HOW COULD Claudius
>reveal his guilt, unequivocally, to Hamlet, in a way that is nonetheless
>invisible to everybody else in the onstage audience, including Horatio
>(who has been told what to watch for), and Gertrude (who is sitting next
>to Claudius), and Polonius (who refers to Hamlet's "pranks", and
>Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (who prattle about the divinity that hedges
>a king, which they would never do if they thought Claudius had murdered
>King Hamlet)?

Indeed, how could he?  How, for that matter, could Aaron show us his
hair straightening, in Titus Andronicus, without everyone else who comes
along commenting on the new coif.  For that matter, how could "My fleece
of woolly hair that now uncurls, / Even as an adder when she doth unroll
/ To do some fatal execution" (2.3.34-36) be portrayed without a rather
elaborate and specially built wig?

There is, however, one good reason why we might not notice Claudius's
response, or lack thereof:  we're distracted by both the players and
Hamlet.  A similar effect occurs in King Lear when Edgar changes accents
(arbitrarily) to greet and fight with Oswald.  Gloucester never comments
on the inconsistency, but the audience is probably too impressed by
Edgar's spectacular acting to even notice how nonsensical it is.

My reading would require Claudius not overacting one way or the other,
but everyone else on stage acting furiously, so it still changes the
usual production decisions in order to leave Hamlet almost uniquely
aware of Claudius's guilt.

Cheers,
Se


Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.