2002

Re: Metamorphoses

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0423  Thursday, 14 February 2002

[1]     From:   R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002 08:24:38 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0409 Metamorphoses

[2]     From:   Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002 09:50:09 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0409 Metamorphoses

[3]     From:   Joseph Tate <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002 08:51:48 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0409 Metamorphoses

[4]     From:   Hannibal Hamlin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002 12:52:53 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0409 Metamorphoses

[5]     From:   Markus Marti <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 13 Feb 2002 00:23:21 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0409 Metamorphoses


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002 08:24:38 -0600
Subject: 13.0409 Metamorphoses
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0409 Metamorphoses

> I am currently seeking the best translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses
> available. I have heard conflicting reports on the A.D. Melville and the
> Mandelbaum versions, Oxford Press and Harvest respectively. I know I
> should really just revisit my Latin but if you could have only one
> translation, which would you have?

The best extant is by Michael Simpson

http://www.umass.edu/umpress/spr_01/simpson.html

Professor Simpson not only captures Ovid, but conveys on paper his own
inspirational ability as a lecturer. You will know the Metamorphoses as
nearly as you may via translation after reading Simpson.

All the best,
R.A. Cantrell
<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002 09:50:09 EST
Subject: 13.0409 Metamorphoses
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0409 Metamorphoses

There is only one translator of Ovid's Metamorphoses into English:

Arthur Golding

The one that Shakespeare read. I have no idea if it's in print but I
wouldn't bother with any other translations.

Best,
Marcus

(Having said all that: there are quite a few versions available for free
on the net including some restoration versions etc)

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joseph Tate <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002 08:51:48 -0800
Subject: 13.0409 Metamorphoses
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0409 Metamorphoses

Only one translation? Arthur Golding's from 1567, without question.
Fortunately, John Frederick Nims' 1965 edition was re-released by Paul
Dry Books in 2000.

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-0966491319-0

Joseph

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hannibal Hamlin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002 12:52:53 -0500
Subject: 13.0409 Metamorphoses
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0409 Metamorphoses

I would recommend the translation by Rolfe Humfries (Indiana).  I am no
expert Latinist myself, but I've heard it recommended by those who are,
and it is certainly highly readable.

Hannibal Hamlin
The Ohio State University, Mansfield

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Markus Marti <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 13 Feb 2002 00:23:21 +0100
Subject: 13.0409 Metamorphoses
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0409 Metamorphoses

> I am currently seeking the best translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses
> available. I have heard conflicting reports on the A.D. Melville and the
> Mandelbaum versions, Oxford Press and Harvest respectively. I know I
> should really just revisit my Latin but if you could have only one
> translation, which would you have?

"Shakespeare's Ovid" The Metamorphoses, transl. Arthur Golding, ed. J.
M. Cohen. Centaur Classics. London: Centaur Press, 1961.

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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: Hamlet (Once More)

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0422  Thursday, 14 February 2002

From:           Andy White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002 09:13:16 -0500
Subject: 13.0406 Re: Hamlet (Once More)
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0406 Re: Hamlet (Once More)

Edmund Taft enumerates a series of actions, and ascribes one single
motivation to all of them, in order to demonstrate that Hamlet is
deliberately testing fate.  But we have Hamlet himself telling us that
he is just as likely to act out of impulse, "rashness," and he marvels
at how an _un_ considered act can seem so appropriate after the fact.
He doesn't choose to go into harm's way all the time; his rash murder of
Polonius makes it necessary for him to at least appear to do Claudius'
bidding, but we already know he's suspicious and will be looking for a
way out.  (BTW, the pirates would be just as likely to take Hamlet for
ransom-money, he being worth more alive than dead given their
circumstances).

I also question Taft's interpretation of Hamlet's several acts.  Hamlet
himself tells us he taunts Laertes because he really loved Ophelia, is
just as appalled at her death as Laertes, and is angered at what he sees
as Laertes' hypocritical ravings over her body (see "tis not alone my
inky cloak" for this one).  It is _not_ clear, moreover, whether Laertes
is really the better fencer; Hamlet accepts the duel, and the odds,
because he believes he will _win_, not because he'll lose.  And as the
duel amply illustrates, Hamlet is the better fencer; he's about to win
at the odds when he's wounded, and it can be argued that Laertes wounds
him because he knows the bout is nearly over.

As for the perusal of the blades, again, the context is one that calls
for civility and trust; if it's a sporting match, with a sporting wager,
you don't check the blades; Claudius and Laertes know this, and use this
common courtesy against Hamlet.  This is not a deliberate death-wish on
Hamlet's part, it's part of a plot that only the audience is in on.

The problem here seems to lie in our confusion between what the audience
knows, versus what Hamlet knows and what Hamlet knows about himself more
importantly.  It's not a good idea, IMHO, to reject Hamlet's own account
of events and cook up something with our own ingredients; let the text
speak first, then let's deal with whatever intentions are revealed by
that text.  And let's also admit that Hamlet's motivations may be
complex, not simple, that there may not be a Stanislavskian
"through-line" (a pathetic fictional construct if ever there was one) in
the play.  It's the variety of motivations, contexts and driving forces
that makes this play so alive for me, not any alleged singularity of
purpose, which to my mind is from the purpose of Shakespeare's craft.

Andy White

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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.

EARLY THEATRE 5.1 (JUNE 2002)

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0420  Thursday, 14 February 2002

From:           Helen Ostovich <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002 21:10:48 -0500
Subject:        EARLY THEATRE 5.1 (JUNE 2002)

EARLY THEATRE will be publishing 2 issues a year, one in June and the
other in December.   We are always interested in receiving an article or
note on any aspect of early modern performance or theatre history, and
are still reviewing material for Volume 5.2.

For the next issue, here is the table of contents.

EARLY THEATRE 5.1 (June 2002)

"Mrs Noah and Didactic Abuses"     by JANE TOLMIE (Harvard)

"The Certainty of Uncertain Knowledge: The Collaborative Authorship of
_The Changeling_"  by RICHARD NOCHIMSON (Yeshiva)

"Playhouse Calls: Folk Play Doctors on the Elizabethan Stage"  by
RICHARD F. HARDIN (U of Kansas)

NOTE
"The Performance of Disguise"  by PETER HYLAND (Huron University
College)

BOOK REVIEWS:
Susan Frye and Karen Robertson, eds. Maids and Mistresses, Cousins and
Queens. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Rev. by Joan Larsen
Klein.

Alan Dessen and Leslie Thomson. Dictionary of Stage Directions in
English Drama. Rev. by Linda McJannet

Records of Early English Drama. Sussex. Edited by Cameron Louis. Brepols
and University of Toronto Press, 2000. Rev. by David Hickman

H. R. Coursen. Shakespeare: The Two Traditions. Madison: Fairleigh
Dickinson University Press, 1999. Rev. by Deborah Cartmell.

Margareta de Grazia and Stanley Wells, editors. The Cambridge Companion
to Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Rev. by
Peter Hyland.

Richard Harp and Stanley Stewart, editors. The Cambridge Companion to
Ben Jonson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Rev. by James
Hirsh.

T. F. Wharton, ed. The Drama of John Marston. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000. Rev. by Ray Rice.

John Cox. The Devil and the Sacred in English Drama, 1350-1642.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Rev. by Peter Happe.

Chris Humphrey. The Politics of Carnival: Festive Misrule in Medieval
England. Manchester UP/Palgrave, 2001. Rev. by Kathleen Ashley.

Please note:  inclusion of all reviews in the June issue depends on
available space.

For subscription, please contact CRRS Publications
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Business Information:
  Address:
    71 Queen's Park E
    Victoria University
    Toronto ON M5S 1K7
    Phone: 416-585-4465

Helen Ostovich
Editor, EARLY THEATRE / Professor, Dept of English
McMaster University
Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4L9
(905)525-9140 x24496  FAX (905)777-8316
http://www.earlytheatre.ca

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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: Sonnet 116

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0421  Thursday, 14 February 2002

[1]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002 17:40:49 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0410 Re: Sonnet 116

[2]     From:   Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002 19:51:32 -0500
        Subj:   Fw: SHK 13.0410 Re: Sonnet 116


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002 17:40:49 -0500
Subject: 13.0410 Re: Sonnet 116
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0410 Re: Sonnet 116

Clifford Stetner writes regarding Sonnet 116.14:

>The verb [loved] could be transitive with the subject I.  For that matter "ever"
>could be read as either at one time or forever.

Good point.

I wonder if Shakespeare's piling up of negatives -- never, nor, no man
-- tends to obscure the ambiguity of the line for a late modern reader.
Abbott, A Shakespearian Grammer, item 406, cites several examples, and
comments: "This idiom is a very natural one, and quite common" in Early
Modern English.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002 19:51:32 -0500
Subject: 13.0410 Re: Sonnet 116
Comment:        Fw: SHK 13.0410 Re: Sonnet 116

Cliford Stetner is right that the verb, 'loved', could be used
transitively, but in the last line of Sonnet #116 it is used
intransitively -- there is no direct object in that clause. The word,
'ever', is used here as an adverb of time, which I would take to mean
'at any time' ('forever' or 'one time' make little sense in this
context).

Paul E. Doniger

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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.

CFP: Bibliography Section, MMLA

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0419  Thursday, 14 February 2002

From:           William Proctor Williams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 13 Feb 2002 16:24:34 -0500
Subject:        CFP: Bibliography Section, MMLA

CALL FOR PAPERS
(please cross-post as appropriate)

Bibliography Section, Midwest Modern Language Association

The 44th Annual M/MLA Convention will be held November 8-10, 2002, at
the Minneapolis Marriott City Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

2002 PROGRAM TOPIC:  English Books and Their Readers in the Hand-Press
Period

DESCRIPTION:  Papers are welcomed on any aspect of the English-language
booktrade before 1800.  Papers may deal with printing, publishing,
retailing, reviewing, regulation of the trade, etc.).  Deadline for
submission is 1 APRIL 2002.  Abstracts to William Proctor Williams,
Department of English, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325 or by email:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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.